Earth's water may have come from comets
October 5th, 2011
01:00 PM ET

Earth's water may have come from comets

Earth was a dry, hot place immediately after it formed, with surface temperatures above 1,000 degrees; any water would have evaporated immediately. And yet today, 71% of our planet's surface is ocean. So where did all that water come from?

One theory is that it came from comets, and that hypothesis gets more support in a new study published in the journal Nature.

Scientists have found that the comet 103P/Hartley 2 has water with properties similar to the water on Earth. The comet is currently about 419 million miles from Earth. Scientists believe it originated in the Kuiper belt, which is near Pluto.

The ratio of deuterium to hydrogen in this comet's water is similar to what's found in the oceans that we know and love. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen that has one extra neutron per atom.

Paul Hartogh of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany, and colleagues used observations from the The European Space Agency's Herschel Space Observatory.

They believe that comets may have delivered much of Earth's water during the Late Heavy Bombardment, about 3.8 to 4.1 billion years ago, a period when Earth, our moon and neighboring planets were slammed by an unusually large number of asteroids and/or comets.

The bombardment may have happened because as Neptune got pushed farther away from the sun, past Uranus, material that was farther out in the solar system moved in toward Earth, Hartogh said.

The idea that comets brought most of our planet's water started circulating in the 1950s and 60s, but it got discredited when the European Space Agency sent a spacecraft to examine Halley's comet in 1986, and the hydrogen isotope ratio didn't match up with earthly water.

Six comets besides Hartley 2 have also been analyzed in recent years, and their water didn't have hydrogen isotope compositions similar to earthly water either. But these comets came from much farther away than the Kuiper belt, in a region called the Oort cloud.

"Now we are almost back to the old theory that water may have been delivered by comets," Hartogh said.

Post by:
Filed under: Discoveries • In Space • On Earth
soundoff (562 Responses)
  1. GG in San Diego

    Could we please ban all discussions of science and religion together? They have no place on the same page, unless of course a religious scholar wants to debunk a religious belief/myth which has now been clearly explained by a new scientific discovery.

    October 7, 2011 at 12:45 pm |
  2. kamarasune

    Nothing here opposes scripture in anyway for those wanting to argue. You can crack the first book called "genesis" and at the very beginning you can read it for yourself.

    October 7, 2011 at 11:50 am |
    • Dan

      Yes, it does. Excerpt from my post below:

      Sumday,
      First of all, creation is included, or alluded to, in many books of the bible, not just three. Genesis, Exodus, Romans, Corinthians, Psalm, to name five.

      With reference to the biblical account in Genesis, the hebrew word "yom" is used in the detail of the events.
      Yom specifically means a day in the 24 hour sense.
      Keeping that in mind, refer back to genesis 1:14 "[...] and let them be for signs, and for the determination of seasons and for days and for years." Here too, "yom" is used.
      It's clear that it's consistently meant to mean the same thing.
      Skip ahead to exodus 20:8-11. Remember the sabbath *day*, to keep it holy. Six *days* you shall labor and do all your work, but the *seventh day* is the sabbath (rest) of the Lord your God. [...] For in six *days* the Lord mae heaven and earth [...] [and rested on the seventh *day".
      Here "yom" is used as well in the original hebrew. God refers here to specific amounts of time, in a specific fashion. Once you add in additional context like photosynthesis for the plants (plants before stars!) in the biblical account, it becomes abundantly clear that we're talking about a specific time frame with a specific series of events.
      Every other use of the word "yom" in the OT (roughly 2000 of them if you're inclined to count) also refers to a 24 hour day by abundantly clear context. The only times it doesn't refer to a 24 hour period of time elapsing is where it's used as a phrase as in "day of the lord", when it still clearly means a 24 period of time, just not discussing elapsed time.

      October 7, 2011 at 12:00 pm |
      • pandoruix

        Genesis is nothing more than a Poetic/Mythological way to explain the Scientific process of accretion and the formation of solar systems and planets. Most of anyones Religious Mumbo Jumbo is nothing more than a story trying to explain events that early humans did not understand. Zeus was the Greek God, people used to believe that, now people laugh and call it a myth and then say their belief is truth. Horus the Egyptian god was the son of Isis and Osiris, It also was believed to be true and now is debunked as a myth/story. The Egyptians even have a character named Atum.... Sounds alot like Adam to me. Every story is a plagiarism of the next to help explain what humans dont understand. Keep in mind back thousands of years ago all these people where writing and carving things down best they could describe. (The ability to Read and Right back then was pretty Rare for Most) So to simply believe what a FEW could only write is just plain Fool Hardy!!!!
        It is an attempt of the human mind not understanding where we came from and who we are that drives our creative side to explain things that have no solution that fits our Needs. We need to feel special. We need to fell we have purpose. We need to feel after this life there is a next. Are Problem started the second we quit worshiping fire and started worshiping make believe people in the sky. Religion is used in the same manner as the Childrens story of Santa Claus... If your good you get toys... if your bad you get a bag of coal.... Then we need a grown up version... If your good you go to heaven.... if your bad you go to hell.. anyone who cant see that is really ill informed and blindly follows the masses like mindless lemmings!

        October 7, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
      • Dan

        pandoruix,

        Thanks for your reply. If you read my other posts, you'll note that I'm an atheist, who happens to be fairly informed regarding various religious topics. You don't need to explain the philosophical problem of many religions existing in the present and past to me, as I take issue with that as well. I was merely disagreeing with the other poster on the grounds of whether Genesis contradicts the subject matter within the article – which it does.
        I disagree with your assertion that they were trying to explain accretion, as they had no concept of it. That's like me asserting that I'm going to flap my arms and fly to the stars, and someone 20,000 years from now saying I was trying to explain space folding as their contemporary means of FTL travel. As far as Adam, the phonetic similarity is irrelevant – the original Hebrew word just means "man" which is why it was used.

        October 7, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
  3. Jim

    Funny how science is just now willing to admit this as the church is losing more and more of its supposed ghost stories. hell, video games have been depicting comets as a source of water since the early 90s. Once more and more people stop drinking the tap water, maybe then we can advance intellectually as a species instead of being muffled by the cries of a dying church.

    October 7, 2011 at 11:21 am |
    • j2bin

      Yes... Dying church. Islam is resurging! Praise be Allah and you my will soon be a believer!

      October 7, 2011 at 11:38 am |
      • Ahole

        ummm no.

        October 7, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
  4. CommentX

    "Earth was a dry, hot place immediately after it formed, with surface temperatures above 1,000 degrees; any water would have evaporated immediately."

    How do they even know this, were they there, was it recorded by the 'aliens' that saw?

    October 7, 2011 at 9:33 am |
    • anon

      Well simply put this is old news. As you say the water would have evaporated yes. When water evaporates it gets trapped in the atmosphere. The process would take place over and over again before finally creating liquid water on land.

      October 7, 2011 at 10:05 am |
      • Jon

        When a planet first forms it doesn't have an atmosphere. So water wouldn't have been trapped via that method. And do you know how many comets would have to hit earth to fill it up with water? I mean really? The oceans have trillions of gallons of water. Where did the water come from on those comets? All speculation.

        October 7, 2011 at 12:55 pm |
      • Dan

        Jon, while I realize there's a pretty significant wall of text in this comments section, there's a great deal of knowledge to be found within. It's often valuable to "listen" first. The questions you're asking are addressed in a few different comments below.

        October 7, 2011 at 1:24 pm |
      • Greg

        What atmosphere? Earth being so hot and lacking enough mass, most all gases(including steam) would have had enough energy to achieve escape velocity and disappear into space never to be seen again. Earth was sad Panda.

        October 8, 2011 at 8:45 am |
    • Scientist

      Stone tablets were found that had all this stuff written down.

      October 7, 2011 at 11:02 am |
    • pandoruix

      hmmm i would say the planet itself keeps a pretty good fossil record.. Duh! you people really need to quit watching TBN and the 700 Club!

      October 7, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
  5. Jdog22

    I am just curious what the science explanation is to why there is so much water on Earth and not on other planets then? I would think that if the earth was slammed with so many comets that would cause us to have 70% water then other planets would have similar compositions, or at least their moons (for the bigger planets). I'm not discrediting this theory I just want to know for my own curiosity so I can answer this question if people ask.

    October 7, 2011 at 8:06 am |
    • Dan

      There are a number of reasons.
      I'd first like to clarify though, that by "water", what you really mean is "liquid water." In order for liquid water to exist, it needs to be within a fairly narrow temperature range, by interstellar standards: between freezing and boiling. Freezing is pretty straight-forward as far as temperatures are concerned. The interesting thing about the boiling point of water is that it's entirely dependent on pressure. If you were to put a cup of water in a vacuum chamber, and suck all the air out, it actually boils. This is known as "low temperature boiling."
      So what we've established so far is that 1) The planet needs to not be too cold. 2) The planet needs to not be too hot 3) The planet needs to have the right sort of atmosphere (and resulting pressure)
      Requirements one and two require a planet to be in what scientists playfully call the "Goldilocks Zone" – not too far away from the star, and not too close to the star. Take Mercury, for instance. The average surface temperature is over 300 Degrees Fahrenheit. *Way* too hot due to its proximity to the sun. Not in the "Goldilocks Zone." It also doesn't have an atmosphere. Venus on the other hand is further away from our star than Mercury, but is twice as hot at the surface. Why? It has an atmosphere, but one of an extremely disproportionate amount of greenhouse gases. You know all the fuming about global warning? That's the worry. The atmospheric composition of Venus traps too much of the heat, and behold! Really hot. Notably, Venus has quite a bit of water vapor in its' atmosphere.
      This brings us to Mars. Mars is a special case. Mars is a bit too small, and a little further away from the star than we'd like, but not honestly too far. Mars is cold, as it has an extremely thin atmosphere. There is good evidence that it used to have one that was replenished by volcanoes, which are long dormant. Part of the reason Mars lost its' atmosphere is that it's not quite big enough to really hold on to it. Once the volcanoes stopped...no more atmosphere. It's very likely that Mars used to have liquid water, as evidenced by quite a few interesting geologic formations we've identified. They look like river beds, etc. But now it's too cold, and the water has either frozen underground, or evaporated into space. This leads to our fourth requirement: being the right size/composition. Mars is on the small side. Liquid water doesn't happen on its own there, given the current geology and geologic activity. However, it's commonly believed that we could artificially create an atmosphere ("terraform" ) the planet with bacteria and algae, creating a self sustaining system. Jupiter on back fall outside of the goldilocks zone, and of course the gas giants also fail the newly mentioned size/composition issue. A gas planet just isn't going to have liquid water. Pluto (I don't care if you want to call it a planet or not) has all sorts of things wrong with it. Too far away (too cold). Too small (no atmosphere).

      In summary, too hot (close to star), too cold (far from star), too small, made of gas, wrong atmosphere: any of those = no liquid water.
      Make sense?

      October 7, 2011 at 9:13 am |
      • Stan

        Thanks, Dan. It's good to come across an intelligent reply on a public forum like this. Usually I have to go to reddit. From scanning replies here, and on Huffpo, YouTube etc., it's obvious that far too many people have been handicapped by rote "learning" or being threatened with hell if they don't toe the company line. You give me hope.

        October 7, 2011 at 12:47 pm |
      • Dan

        I appreciate your kind words, Stan.

        I've worked to gain knowledge of a variety of things, including religion (though I'm atheist by belief). I've especially found knowledge of religion to be of benefit in my daily interactions with others, as I can meaningfully discuss concepts like environmentalism and human rights with those of religious persuasion on their terms. I've found that it enables meaningful dialog and can open minds and change hearts. When you discuss concepts like stewardship in a meaningful way with a Christian they can abruptly begin to understand environmentalism as a concept. When you discuss events like Abraham's "test" of sacrificing his son, and what it means for faith vs. action, you can communicate the importance of not just believing something, but acting on it.
        I believe it is vitally important to have the ability to establish rapport (common ground), when attempting to communicate. It's easy to expect others to understand you and learn what you know, but that approach is entirely ineffective and irresponsible. On the other hand, to reach out a hand instead of pointing a finger is unbelievably productive.

        October 7, 2011 at 1:21 pm |
      • pandoruix

        Very WELL explained its a shame most wont understand what you said its not broken down in chapters, versus, and scripture so its not true LOL

        GG dan!

        October 7, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
      • BLIERSO

        Dan, very good exlanation. Also, if I may add that "The Sun lies between 25,000 and 28,000 light years from the Galactic Center, and its speed within the galaxy is about 220 kilometres per second, so that it completes one revolution every 225–250 million years." Besides the Earth's ideal temperature, distance from the sun, having a gravity and atmosphere and traveling through space at 220 kilometres per second, the Earth is probably capturing more and more water molecules as it speeds through space. That could be one of the explanations of the rising water levels and changing weather paterns, not so much from the melting icecaps. There is a lot of good information on Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_system

        October 10, 2011 at 12:37 am |
      • lifeishd

        Dan, you need a website so i can read all of you logical reasonings.

        October 26, 2011 at 11:47 am |
    • irishyank2

      Water is still entering our atmosphere via small projectiles coming in from space. In fact, debris is constantly dropping into the atmosphere from space. Granted, not at the volume they mention in the article several billion years ago, but once water and most other matter enters our atmosphere, it's here to stay. Even if you added only a gallon of water to Earth every day for 4 billion years, that's a lot of water.

      October 7, 2011 at 1:45 pm |
  6. RK

    Bloody FOOLS, Water is one of 5 elemental Powers. Mother of Sun.
    when you will understand, these all on going global crisis is an attempt to teach a lesson.

    October 7, 2011 at 8:01 am |
  7. fimeilleur

    wow... put the computer away...

    October 7, 2011 at 12:56 am |
  8. kryptonian guest

    dan you are weird and lol aliens there not real there just some hoax the goverment placed out to scare people into paying taxes theres no such thing as ufos

    October 6, 2011 at 10:22 pm |
    • Wolf

      Excuse me but there is such things as U.F.O.s. I am not talking about aliens. If you see a flying object and do not know what it is, it is technically a U.F.O. U.F.O. stand for unidentified flying object. Sometimes the government test new models of aircraft and describes it as a U.F.O. The public also calls it that because they have no idea what it is and it looks strange and unlike any other aircraft they have ever seen. So they assume it is an alien spaceship. People usually associate U.F.O.s with aliens but it can be used to describe human aircraft as well.

      October 7, 2011 at 3:27 am |
      • pandoruix

        UFO's Are referenced in scripture but usually involves an Angel or God ascending from the sky on a chariot. (I would characterize that as a UFO) I can Replace words like Angels in the Bible with Astronauts and it makes a little more sense... ( and thats being Polite)

        October 7, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
  9. salman

    my teachers have been teaching me this for years. carl sagan said we're all made of star stuff. slow CNN, just slow.

    October 6, 2011 at 10:21 pm |
  10. Boobyface

    "Comets hit Earth a whole bunch a gajillion bajillion years ago!" Really, these scientists offer no better explanation than priests. They have no clue and never will.

    October 6, 2011 at 10:11 pm |
    • Evn

      Boobyface (maybe that says it all), the difference between scientist and a religious believer is that the former seeks real explanations, even if they are difficult to determine, admits they don't know everything and keeps on looking and testing, while the later accepts an explanation on faith, doesn't bother and is by definition incapable of questioning the tenets of that faith, and all too often casts aside anything and anyone that might challenge their heart felt beliefs. They are not the same by any stretch of the imagination and could not be any more different than day and night. This world's biggest problem is that we have too few of the former, and far far too many of the latter.

      October 7, 2011 at 7:21 am |
    • pandoruix

      I find what the scientists to say more believable than magical/mythological story of being created. there is just to many errors in scripture (and i mean anyones) Heck the standard is God is a Single all powerful being, but yet in our creation it states " Let us make man in OUR image" ..... why the plural???? I can never get a straight answer from anyone for that line!

      October 7, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
      • Boobyface

        "Our" refers to God and angels. Anway, I'm not saying one is better than the other, but it seems to me that scientists "theories" are no less fantastical than religion. They come up with any remotely possible explanation and run with it like it's near fact. It's the same as belief. It can't be proven. You will never know for sure. Still they cling to their "theories" which are just their own gospel. Their own religion which is based mostly on belief in their own ideas. That's my take.

        October 8, 2011 at 9:55 am |
  11. Victor

    Seriously???

    How about burned ice on space??

    October 6, 2011 at 9:54 pm |
  12. tim

    serously god is real people and how do we no if im an earth born angel huh seems like i can only speak truth i try to lie but the lie turns into a joke i laugh about plus school teachers in the past claimed they saw a halo floating over my head and i have a special gift of telepathy can read peoples thoughts and if i get injured i can absorb the pain and the injury is healed the next day and god gave us food from the land

    October 6, 2011 at 7:42 pm |
    • Dan

      *sigh*

      "serously god is real people"
      Which one? Ptah? Yahweh? Spaghetti Monster? I bet it's Spaghetti Monster!!!

      " and how do we no if im an earth born angel huh"
      Oh, we know... don't worry, we know.

      "seems like i can only speak truth"
      If by truth, you mean falsehoods; and by falsehoods, you mean nonsense; and by nonsense, you mean insane babbling....yes, you can only speak the "truth."

      "i try to lie but the lie turns into a joke i laugh about"
      Joke alright.

      "plus school teachers in the past claimed they saw a halo floating over my head"
      Was it the accretion disk of the black hole in your cranium?

      " and i have a special gift of telepathy can read peoples thoughts"
      At least we can establish *someone's* thoughts are in your head.

      " and if i get injured i can absorb the pain"
      As opposed to the rest of us, who excrete the pain.

      " and the injury is healed the next day"
      The injury you've done to our collective psyche will never heal.

      " and god gave us food from the land"
      Especially the nightshade!

      October 6, 2011 at 9:16 pm |
      • AFLP

        Well done, Dan. Well done.

        October 6, 2011 at 9:58 pm |
      • John 2

        Ya Dan rely looks like you have it all figured out.

        October 7, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
      • JMF

        Thanks Dan!
        Usually, I got exasperated with such nonsense, but you make the best of it.
        You comment bellow saved my day:
        "plus school teachers in the past claimed they saw a halo floating over my head"
        Was it the accretion disk of the black hole in your cranium?

        October 8, 2011 at 3:30 am |
  13. Aaron L.

    CNN is just now figuring this out LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

    October 6, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
  14. SiriusVH

    It always amazes me to see some of you to go to great lengths to try to explain a point of science, or even just straight facts, to a bunch of individuals crippled by their religious beliefs. I do not know where you find the energy and patience. I probably get more benefits from the points you make and the knowledge you sometimes display than your targeted audience.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
    • Dan

      Long as someone benefits from it!

      October 6, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
      • pandoruix

        Every little bit helps! :-) As soon as we cure this Human Disability of Faith we can grow and move to other planets. Our old Religious Traditions tend to hurt us in our quest for greatness more so than it helps. The more we educate the less hatred for Indifference we will have. I have found Religious people tend the be cause of mans problems. They Hate Gays, Other Religions, and general progression as a whole. Once we shed our need for it then we will be alot better off!

        October 7, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
      • Greg

        If there is anything BSG has taught us, it's that religion will be everywhere, even in our Scifi shows. Oh, and in any robot/genetically crafted species our ancestors on other planets may have created. There is no escaping it :/

        October 8, 2011 at 8:55 am |
  15. JC

    The Kingdom of God draws near and the understanding of man to comprehend the things of God breaks forth an imagination based on illusion. No one can deny something for which they themselves have not seen, yet their high minds distract other with less intelligence as pertaining to earthly knowledge. All things were made for Him and through Him. Really the things we do now see are temporal, why, because natural things are being consumed with Spiritual Things. Soon the last will be first and the first will be last. This of course pertains to natural things being last and Spiritual things being first. God is consuming the minds of man, really is like a circle beginning following the end, and the end following the begining. Because God is in eternity, we can only try to figure His out, but His widsom outperforms our ability to comprehend Him. Therefore we must trust His guidance, as little children trust their Father. We cannot comprehend our own intellect because is limited only to what we can reason, and even so, others with newer knowledge or proof will contract even what is found. All things were made for Him and through HIm!

    October 6, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      "No one can deny something for which they themselves have not seen" and no one can confirm something they have not. It's a two way street... but the onus is on you to prove to me that your version of God exists...

      Sorry, the rest of your rant doesn't do it...

      October 6, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
    • Katmajere

      Oh! Please keep preaching! I LOVE a good ol' fashioned "Iron Age Fairy Tale". - I must now go tend to my unicorn and talking serpent (sorry, but nothing said it was a snake), and load up 2 of every animal into my 76 Ford Station Wagon for the next great flood for all of us sinners who haven't repented or bowed down to your vengeful deities.

      October 6, 2011 at 7:01 pm |
    • Evn

      And to think that the U.S. government supports the ramblings of people like you through non-taxation of religious entities that foster fairy tale based belief systems. A pretty slick approach really as it helps keep a very sizeable number of people from focusing on the other things the government and those it really serves is doing. It also lets that sizeable group happy in their delusions of an afterlife and suffering and everything else being god's will. And, with all the variances among the various belief systems, we have a readily manipulable difference of views that can be whipped into a fervor and provide willing and anxious bodies to persecute, kill and marginalize others who don't belief the same thing.

      October 7, 2011 at 7:36 am |
    • pandoruix

      If it makes you happy then have at it.. some people like Bliss over Reality

      October 7, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
  16. Charlie

    When are people going to realize that water was put on this Earth by a magical herd of unicorns? I mean the whole idead of some invisible guy making water is completely absurd. Everyone knows that comets are the dropping of interstellar unicorns. Get with the program.

    October 6, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
    • Evn

      Unicorn urine – wow, now it all makes sense.

      October 7, 2011 at 7:39 am |
  17. Casey

    This article is all crap and so are all of you stupid fools comments geesh wake up people.

    October 6, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
    • Richard

      Is that you're whole argument? "this is crap, you're stupid!" Wow you're a deep thinker. What are you 12? I think you need to ask mommy's permission before you get online. At least ask her for an explanation to your argument. I love reading these responses people give. It really shows the intellect of the average person that can mash the keyboard just to prove he can. Way to go Casey, keep showing everyone your IQ.

      October 6, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
  18. ericmatthews

    I fully believe that comets could be the delivery vessels of water, gold and other elements on earth. Many religions describe how God created the earth, and this theory does not conflict with that. God does exist. After studying the history of earth and religion in general, and seeing proof of civilizations much older than many scientists claim we have existed, many times over around the globe, and the history of religion and its teachings in those ancient civilization's, combined with the age of the universe, and our TINY perspective of its history, to deny a creator seems ignorantly arrogant to me. I wish more people would take the time to investigate our history, but unfortunately most people are just followers of what is deemed 'cool' by people who really don't have clue about our creation in the first place.

    October 6, 2011 at 2:02 pm |
    • Dan

      "I fully believe that comets could be the delivery vessels of water, gold and other elements on earth." – Great!

      "Many religions describe how God created the earth, and this theory does not conflict with that." Um...sure it does. It directly contradicts Genesis. I could see a couple ways of looking at it from the Gita. Genesis not liking it is enough though.

      "God does exist." Which one? The flying spaghetti monster? Yahweh? Ptah?

      "After studying the history of earth and religion in general, and seeing proof of civilizations much older than many scientists claim we have existed," Which civilizations?

      "to deny a creator seems ignorantly arrogant to me" – Not clear what you base that on? You saw something pretty and old, so someone had to have made it?

      " I wish more people would take the time to investigate our history, but unfortunately most people are just followers of what is deemed 'cool' by people who really don't have clue about our creation in the first place." I've spent thousands of hours familiarizing myself with all sorts of science, history, and religion. I don't follow your logic, however.

      October 6, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
      • sumday

        Dan this in no way contradicts the bible- All of creation is summed up in 3 or less chapters it just says G-d did something not how he did it. Now look at the description of Geneses and it follows pretty darn close to the way science describes evolution. It is only if you look at it as 24hrs rather than a day meaning a period of time- but just to humor you I will also add that time is all relative to speed- IE if God moved faster than the speed of light it might be as 24hrs to him (and in Genesis he is giving the account from his perspective seeing how no human was around for the first 5 days) and maybe billions of yrs to us- the relativity of time is proven.
        When one says G-d despite “which one” is being referred to , it is always as a creator a being that created us with much more knowledge than we posses.
        Yes denying a creator is very ignorant and small minded. I’m an engineer and know what type of planning/work/knowledge is involved in building a skyscraper that doesn’t move, so to tell me that this extremely complex and complicated thing called life just happened by it’s self without though or planning is beyond absurd. First why would this random accidents of evolution occur in balance? IE why did the predator and prey evolve together and one not totally out evolve the other? Second there is the whole evolution thing-did it happen quickly or slowly? If slowly how did life somehow always have evolved at just the right time to survive a super volcanoe, asteroid impact, ice age, heat age? I mean really life without planning or thought just happened to be at the right stage of evolution every time something like this happened? Also for evolution to happen it would be more than 1 simple small mutation as many genes control more than 1 thing in the body, so even if things started slowly changing IE arms/legs started getting longer there would come a point where the organs would have to evolve at the exact same rate which means many genes had to change/mutate all at once in precisely the exact time. At what point do you say hey there are way too many coincident to just be an accident? It is not that I can’t handle the complexity of this universe it really is you can’t fathom a being capable of having that much knowledge. Our brain is 3.5lb and look what we can understand, now compare that 3.5lb to the weight of the universe- it’s pretty small. Imagine what a being more advanced than us would be capable of- humans can only have single thought imagine a being capable of muilti thought all at once. Also we have not discovered or understood what makes up consciousness- and there are numerous documented reports of near death experiences, astro projection, remote viewing, ect (just google it) that seem to suggest that a body may not be necessary for consciousness to exist and if so then there may be a greater consciousness in this universe capable of knowing/understanding everything. Out right denying a G-d exist just makes you small and simple minded for you are making a claim based solely on your 3.5lb understanding but everyday new things are discovered. Until all things are known no one can reasonably excluded the possibility of a creator.

        October 6, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
      • ericmatthews

        I'm afraid I don't understand how you think it contradicts Genesis. I wish you had stated a reason bigger than you not liking it.
        Göbekli Tepe is one of numerous archeological finds in recent years. Göbekli Tepe ruins are 12,000 years old, 7,000 years older than the Great Pyramid. There are also ruins in Southern Africa that date to nearly 200,000BC. Many underwater finds also predate common scientific theories of our existence. I believe Genesis basically explains that the 'Sons of God' were on the earth during ancient times....probably Greek Mythology figures did exist at some time as well as other beings with greater intelligence. It would explain some of the amazing architecture from those days, that we still cannot reproduce even now. Then Genesis explains that the Sons of God were revered as Gods themselves, and eventually banned from Earth by God, that we may worship only the Creator of all things, and not his creations. There is so much more evidence out there buried and being discovered and causing Scientists to rethink past beliefs. Its painfully obvious that we don't know where we came from or how we got here, from a scientific stand point. To disregard all evidence as merely the workings of less advanced civilizations seems ridiculous to me.

        October 6, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
      • Dan

        There are days I wish I wasn't continually finding myself teaching Christians about the bible.

        Sumday,
        First of all, creation is included, or alluded to, in many books of the bible, not just three. Genesis, Exodus, Romans, Corinthians, Psalm, to name five.

        With reference to the biblical account in Genesis, the hebrew word "yom" is used in the detail of the events.
        Yom specifically means a day in the 24 hour sense.
        Keeping that in mind, refer back to genesis 1:14 "[...] and let them be for signs, and for the determination of seasons and for days and for years." Here too, "yom" is used.
        It's clear that it's consistently meant to mean the same thing.
        Skip ahead to exodus 20:8-11. Remember the sabbath *day*, to keep it holy. Six *days* you shall labor and do all your work, but the *seventh day* is the sabbath (rest) of the Lord your God. [...] For in six *days* the Lord mae heaven and earth [...] [and rested on the seventh *day".
        Here "yom" is used as well in the original hebrew. God refers here to specific amounts of time, in a specific fashion. Once you add in additional context like photosynthesis for the plants (plants before stars!) in the biblical account, it becomes abundantly clear that we're talking about a specific time frame with a specific series of events.
        Every other use of the word "yom" in the OT (roughly 2000 of them if you're inclined to count) either refers to a 24 hour day by abundantly clear context. The only times it doesn't refer to a 24 hour period of time elapsing is where it's used as a phrase as in "day of the lord", when it still clearly means a 24 period of time, just not discussing elapsed time.

        "yes denying a creator is very ignorant and small minded". I did not deny a creator. I merely said I have no explicit belief in one. Though I don't respect or appreciate your ad hominem assaults on logic, I do agree it would be illogical to explicitly "deny" that it's possible that a god, goddess, or pantheon of such deities exist.

        As to your evolution commentary, please read the rest of this thread and then re-post any questions you may have.

        October 6, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
      • Dan

        Eric, I'm afraid you're confusing science and religion. Where does science suggest 12,000 year old ruins don't exist? Or 200,000 year old ruins? The dates you specify would have been arrived at via scientific processes, such as molecular decay dating (carbon, etc.)
        No commonly accepted scientific theories suggest that our ancestors didn't exist during this time.
        I'm very confused at how you're arriving at the logical conclusions you're arriving at. Science never contradicts observed data. When new data is observed which contradicts existing theories, those theories are modified or abandoned to accommodate.

        "I believe Genesis basically explains that the 'Sons of God' were on the earth during ancient times....probably Greek Mythology figures did exist at some time as well as other beings with greater intelligence. "
        I won't speculate on the intersection of Greek and Christian mythology. That's way beyond the scope of this discussion, or my knowledge. I'm quite familiar with both, but have not spent any time attempting to intersect the two.

        " There is so much more evidence out there buried and being discovered and causing Scientists to rethink past beliefs." Yep! It's a beautiful process.

        " Its painfully obvious that we don't know where we came from or how we got here, from a scientific stand point. " You're right, we don't "know" at all. However, we have some great working theories, such as evolution, which have withstood every single test and newly discovered evidence since their inception.

        "To disregard all evidence as merely the workings of less advanced civilizations seems ridiculous to me." Absolutely! I would never suggest disregarding evidence.

        October 6, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
      • John 2

        Yup Dan I can see you really are a genius, everything just fell together perfectly, like the watch on your wrist if you waited long enough it would have pieced itself together. I think the echo system is far more complex than that.

        October 7, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
      • John 2

        Dan
        Just curious why are we not still evolving? You would think we would be growing wings by now or something like that. Or is there something that we have noted as currently evolving into a new species?

        October 7, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
      • Dan

        What leads you to believe we aren't still evolving? What leads you to believe we should have wings?

        October 7, 2011 at 9:18 pm |
    • ericmatthews

      Dan,
      In my opinion Science and God go hand in hand. To me everything scientists discover further proves the supreme intelligence of our Creator, where as others see it as proof of something else.
      The point of bringing up ancient civilizations was that there is only so much time for the very shaky theory of evolution to have taken place, and finding older and older civilzations, is narrowing that window. Eventually Science will prove that there was not time for humans to evolve from monkeys.
      Another point from Genesis, was that we were created in his image. Like children, you could say, and we still only use 10 percent of our brain, which to me means we are not at our full potential yet. In my opinion, this is more proof that we are created, rather than evolved.

      I have enjoyed discussing this with you today

      October 6, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
      • Dan

        ericmatthews,
        "In my opinion Science and God go hand in hand. To me everything scientists discover further proves the supreme intelligence of our Creator, where as others see it as proof of something else."
        I don't disagree. As an atheist, I don't agree, but I don't see any reason to disagree with the idea that science and God are compatible.

        "The point of bringing up ancient civilizations was that there is only so much time for the very shaky theory of evolution to have taken place, and finding older and older civilzations, is narrowing that window. Eventually Science will prove that there was not time for humans to evolve from monkeys."
        But...the problem is, you aren't making a point. The timeframes you're talking about are a drop in the bucket. You apparently are totally missing some key concepts in history. The stone age has long been considered to have lasted for 2.5 million years. No windows have been narrowed by such findings, and no danger to evolution as a theory exists in that realm.

        "Another point from Genesis, was that we were created in his image. Like children, you could say, and we still only use 10 percent of our brain, which to me means we are not at our full potential yet. In my opinion, this is more proof that we are created, rather than evolved."

        The 10% utilization of our brain theory is an unfortunate and pervasive myth. There is a vast body of evidence (a large portion of which is unfortunately derived from various head traumas and accidents) indicating that if most any part of the brain is damaged, the patient will suffer a bizarre range of effects. Functional scans also readily demonstrate use throughout the brain for all sorts of activities. ...I'm not sure what else this section attempts to offer.

        "I have enjoyed discussing this with you today"

        Likewise! Do post again. Please become further acquainted with that which you believe in. If you have any questions, biblical or scientific, I'll be happy to help as I can.

        October 6, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
      • Real

        god didn't create man.....man created god. When will you people learn?

        October 7, 2011 at 8:51 am |
    • pandoruix

      Yes but to Blindly Except a Creator Point of view is also ignorant! I created life... My kids...... I dont request that they worship me. God didnt make my kids. Sexual Intercourse with no protection did!

      October 7, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
  19. Disgusted

    I have known this for over 40 years and if the scientists look closer, they will find that the earth's oceans contain comet water of many types of comets... sounds like grant money justification.

    Remember when Hubble telescope revealed the uncountable objects in space (they estimate them of many names based on samples of areas), a lot of smart people knew it as I did back in the 50's, but scientists had to argue for years about it. The universe is much larger than they have determined and I feel it is so vast that it is immeasurable.

    Same goes with platonic’s, that was easy for me to figured that out back in 1956. All common logic when you look at the evidence and reality of what is versus the notion that a God like thing for any religion dreamed it all up, created it, and controls everything that is going on for uncountable creatures upon uncountable objects in space. We are talking numbers so vast in size that we don't even have them defined yet as we have no clue.

    And we are totally fools if for one second we believe we are the only creatures of intelligence to go into space and explore it and visit other planets like ours by means of transportation/teleporting we have yet to conceive. If you understand how matched pairs of Quarks react in time, then you realize that other means of getting from one place to another super fast may exist that we have yet to discover. This will allow us one day to explore across the great distances of space within less than a day or maybe even in minutes or less.

    I believe we have visitors from other planets living among us as we are not alone in the vastness of space. Remember, the Milky Way and later Earth was not created before a lot of the other galaxies and planets in space, Earth they say is around 4.5 billion years old and the Universe that has so far think we have measured correctly is around 12 billion so a lot of creation of anything imaginable and unimaginable can occur in that time.

    October 6, 2011 at 1:23 pm |
    • JinxGT

      A) You claim to "know" this 40 years ago but could you prove it 40 years ago? If you couldn't have proven it, then how did you "know" it to be a fact?

      B) What do you mean by "platonics" or did you mean Plate tectonics? If you are referring to Plate tectonics, then empirical evidence wasn't discovered until the 60's which again calls into question the validity of your claims. "Common sense" isn't evidence.

      C) I could argue that you are a fool in thinking there is sentient extraterrestrial life. Also you are walking on thin ice if you're going to try and dive into quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics mathematically breaks down on a macroscopic scale.

      October 6, 2011 at 1:39 pm |
    • Billy Madison's test proctor

      Disgusted, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

      October 6, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
  20. sumday

    "Earth was a dry, hot place immediately after it formed, with surface temperatures above 1,000 degrees; any water would have evaporated immediately"- I'm a little confused by this theory isn't it our atmosphere that prevents evaporated water from leaving the earth today? So even if the earth cooled off enough not to evaporate the water immediately there would still be evaporation taking place (just like water evaporates today), so say these comets had water and hit the earth what kept all the water from these comets from evaporating back into space? The only way this theory makes sense to me is if there was an atmosphere here first to trap the water from evaporating back into space, but how could we have an atmosphere if there was no water present when the comet hit? The only possible thing I can think of is if when these comet hit earth they somehow very quickly created an atmosphere from their impact that then trapped all the water here. If this comet water theory is correct I want to know what keep the water from evaporating back into space once these comets hit the earth or how an atmosphere formed to trap the water?

    October 6, 2011 at 1:16 pm |
    • tim

      lets see dude first water doesnt come from outerspace god created water from the great flood duh and the earth wasint very hot back then becuase theres a thing called the north pole and pltuo is a planet also

      October 6, 2011 at 1:19 pm |
      • sumday

        Sigh* Tim I didn’t say G-d didn’t create the water nor am I arguing/talking about what G-d did. Instead I like many others are talking about HOW G-d did it! Your entire view of the world is based on what 3 chapters of a book? All of creation condensed into 3 chapters and you believe it literally? Tell me Tim how could G-d of created the universe in 1 day if there was no night/day to begin with to measure against? I think a big problem today is that no one looks back on the bible with the understanding of today knowledge. Pl like you are content to believe the simplistic view of the bible with no knowledge.
        Another question Tim did G-d create Eve on the 6th or the 8th day? If it was on the 6th day and we are assuming 24hrs lets think here- the bible says God mad Adam on the 6th day (so subtract a little time for creating) he then brought all the animals to Adam for him to name before Eve was made (how long would it take you to name every animal in the world), then G-d put Adam in a deep sleep while he made Eve (how long did Adam sleep?) and all this was done in 24hrs??? Or is it possible that the day mentioned in the bible is really just a period of time and not literally 24hrs? Now if Eve was created on the 8th day I’m expected to believe that G-d created everything in 6 days rested and then spent the next couple thousand YEARS (not days) trying to “redeem” man? If you look at the bible with today’s knowledge you will find more in there than you ever dreamed of. In fact if you look at it we are still in the 6th day of creation as in Hebrews it says that the Sabbath is a foreshadow of the things to come (it hasn’t happened yet) and when the Israelites ticked G-d off in the desert he swore in his anger that that generation would not enter into his rest- but if his rest (the Sabbath) had already occurred how could he make that statement? Tim there is no contradiction bt science and the bible for me- all science does is teach me HOW G-d did something and the more about science I learn the more about G-d I know. If one took the time to read the bible with the understand and knowledge of today you would be amazed at what is really in there. Aliens/spaceships/teleportation/telepathic/relativity of time- all that is in there and scientifically possible. Furthermore the bible itself is about 90% a history book about what king lived and what wars were fought. Only about 10% of it is what G-d did or said.

        October 6, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
      • Dan

        There are days I wish I wasn't continually finding myself teaching Christians about the bible.

        Sumday,
        First of all, creation is included, or alluded to, in many books of the bible, not just three. Genesis, Exodus, Romans, Corinthians, Psalm, to name five.

        With reference to the biblical account in Genesis, the hebrew word "yom" is used in the detail of the events.
        Yom specifically means a day in the 24 hour sense.
        Keeping that in mind, refer back to genesis 1:14 "[...] and let them be for signs, and for the determination of seasons and for days and for years." Here too, "yom" is used.
        It's clear that it's consistently meant to mean the same thing.
        Skip ahead to exodus 20:8-11. Remember the sabbath *day*, to keep it holy. Six *days* you shall labor and do all your work, but the *seventh day* is the sabbath (rest) of the Lord your God. [...] For in six *days* the Lord mae heaven and earth [...] [and rested on the seventh *day".
        Here "yom" is used as well in the original hebrew. God refers here to specific amounts of time, in a specific fashion. Once you add in additional context like photosynthesis for the plants (plants before stars!) in the biblical account, it becomes abundantly clear that we're talking about a specific time frame with a specific series of events.
        Every other use of the word "yom" in the OT (roughly 2000 of them if you're inclined to count) either refers to a 24 hour day by abundantly clear context. The only times it doesn't refer to a 24 hour period of time elapsing is where it's used as a phrase as in "day of the lord", when it still clearly means a 24 period of time, just not discussing elapsed time.

        "yes denying a creator is very ignorant and small minded". I did not deny a creator. I merely said I have no explicit belief in one. Though I don't respect or appreciate your ad hominem assaults on logic, I do agree it would be illogical to explicitly "deny" that it's possible that a god, goddess, or pantheon of such deities exist.

        As to your evolution commentary, please read the rest of this thread and then re-post any questions you may have.

        October 6, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
      • Dan

        Doh! Posted that in the wrong spot. Though it is partially relevant, as he brings up the Genesis account in multiple places.

        October 6, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
    • Seeker76

      Gravity would hold water vapor to the surface. Remember, that our atmosphere is incredily heavy. The only reason it doesn't crush you is because you are internally pressurized against it. And just because it was hot doesn't mean there was no atmpshere, I believe there were a number of nitrogen and sulfide compounds from volcanic activity which would have chemically bonded with the water and kept it in place. Those are just a few things that woul have kept water in place.

      October 6, 2011 at 1:25 pm |
      • sumday

        Thank you. Tthat makes some sense to me, but still not sure if gravity alone would have been enough to keep the water here? Water evaporates today and rises against gravity (that's why we have clouds) also before all the water hit earth our gravity would have been less as the mass of earth would be have been smaller without water. I was under the impression that it was our "atmophere" that prevented those water vapors from driffing into space. But thank you for your response I didn't think of nitorgen, or volcanic activity.

        October 6, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
      • Dan

        The pre-water mass of the earth would have been adequate – at a cool enough temperature.
        Something to keep in mind is the fact that water vapor is a gas. Gases "bounce" off one another. The more energy in the gas system, the more "bouncing" we get, the more "violent" the system gets.
        Take a quart of water. Throw it on a fairly hot stove. It's angry! Throw it on a really hot stove. It's dangerous! Throw it on a few thousand degree vat of liquid metal: you might well have set off a bomb.
        Take a balloon. Fill it. Put it in the oven. It will pop.
        A hot earth would, in my understanding, have adequate energy that it's contributing to any newly introduced gaseous water to overcome gravity forces and cause it to expand into space. A cooler earth would hold onto it.
        Some of that may have been poorly worded, so someone please correct me if I mis-phrased something, as this isn't normally a focus for me.

        October 6, 2011 at 2:05 pm |
    • pandoruix

      When Water is Exposed to heat it generates Steam... That steam will produce Clouds and a Thick Blanket layer of Moisture to produce a viable way to trap or create an atmosphere. Hope this helps... i learned this in school so not sure why so many people dont know it!

      October 7, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
  21. tim

    people god did create the universe and you have to be blessed to even come across an angel and everything from the holy bible is comming true just look at the rich people in the goverment there stealing peoples money and using for there selfish needs now and it says in the holy bible that a golden city will come from the heavens and the goverment will send the army to try to take gods city but they will fail against it becuase they cant over power god or his city and we are getting closer to the end becuase i heard on one news story of a lake going blood red that is one sign that god is comming and look at the old dude that thought the fake rapture was going to happen in may that old man must have been the false prophet and look at the wild life animals there dieng and sceince cant proof how and also people are becomming more rude and hatefull that is also mentioned in the finale days from the holy bible and the angels are on earth they could jsut be keeping themselfs hidden from the human eye or they could be the people you see in town and you just dont no that there an angel becuase angels dont need wings or white gown to reveal there existance and how do we even no if god is on earth as we speak he could be but we dont no becuase he might be making himself look like a normal person

    October 6, 2011 at 12:57 pm |
    • Dan

      *Facepalm*
      Words, words, everywhere – and not a period to be found!

      Let's see if we can dissect this wall of slobber.
      "you have to be blessed to even come across an angel" – Wow, since no one in the last couple thousand years has even been suggested to have come across an angel. Sure sucks to be me and the other 60 billion or so in that category, as we're not "blessed", whatever that means.

      "look at the rich people in the goverment there stealing peoples money" – wow that's a new one! As though that hasn't been happening, with consistency, for the last couple thousand years. Your American-centric view of the world is also frighteningly ignorant. You seem to maintain that some period of not-new corruption happening during your life span in your country of origin is a sure sign of the impending apocalypse.

      Next comes...some barely intelligible nonsense about a golden city which hasn't appeared yet, and therefore isn't evidence of your assertion.

      "and we are getting closer to the end becuase i heard on one news story of a lake going blood red that is one sign that god is comming " – Have you ever visited a national park? There are all sorts of funny colored lakes, and they've been there for millions of years. My aquarium turned an irritating shade of green a couple months back due to a cyanobacteria outbreak. My first reaction was to jump out the window, but then I realized I was educated and that wasn't necessary.

      "and look at the old dude that thought the fake rapture was going to happen in may that old man must have been the false prophet". You do realize that thousands of "false prophets" have called for the end, over and over, from long before Christ, until now? Refer to http://www.abhota.info/end1.htm for a useful list of such nonsense

      " and look at the wild life animals there dieng and sceince cant proof how " – Yes, animals are dying. The number one reason? You guessed it! Us! We kill billions of animals, harvest billions of acres of forest, with no end in sight. That doesn't prove end times, it proves that as a species we're short-sighted idiots prone to ignoring reality staring us in the face. Science has more evidence on this subject alone than you could study in a diligent year with just summaries.

      " and also people are becomming more rude and hatefull " Most of the "hate" I observe comes from the religious right. Think Richard Phelps. Both atheists and the religious tend to be rude, but that's, again, consistently observable human nature.

      "that is also mentioned in the finale days from the holy bible and the angels are on earth they could jsut be keeping themselfs hidden from the human eye or they could be the people you see in town and you just dont no that there an angel becuase angels dont need wings or white gown to reveal there existance and how do we even no if god is on earth as we speak he could be but we dont no becuase he might be making himself look like a normal person" ...... What? Do you walk down the street going "Huh. Wonder if that guy's an angel?" Maybe we're all in the Matrix!

      October 6, 2011 at 1:19 pm |
      • tim

        wow dude your rude and racist sceince cant rpoof anything lets see sceince said i wasint gonna live past 3 months old when i was first born but 24 years later oh look im still alive becuase sceince didint kill me off and another thing only a certain amount are allowed to see angels and lets see im blessed becuase i cant see angels and i have my own sabiltys i can dectect what kind of person someone is from sensing there spirit if i get a bad feeling about someone i no there wicked if i get a peacefull feeling i can tell there a good person and the golden city wont come untell the god wants it to and lol sceince said planet x was gonna destroy earth last week but it never did becuase i requested to a few churchs that we all pray to god and oh look planet x elenin faded away and nothing bad happened to earth becuase god answered are prayers and destroyed the doomsday rock

        October 6, 2011 at 1:33 pm |
      • Dan

        Is English your first language? If not, I apologize for part of my commentary.

        Rude? Yes, what I wrote was rude. It was "rude" in the sense of being impolite. You too, however, are rude. Rude can also mean without culture, learning, or refinement. You are amazingly rude. You demonstrate a significant lack of logic and accumulated knowledge through your writing content.

        Racist? Accusations of "racism" here are about as baseless as it gets. I don't even know what race you are.

        Science can't prove anything? Take a look at your computer: science. Your car? Science. The food you eat? Science. Antibiotics? Science. Your house? Science. Your clothes (probably made of synthetic materials)? Science. If science can't prove anything, what can?

        "oh look im still alive becuase sceince didint kill me off" Wow I don't even know what to say to that.

        OK...Well then... At this point in writing I have to confess I copy/pasted your message into a notepad and have been responding to it as I've been reading it. The rest of it is utter insanity. You're either a troll or need to seek therapy.

        October 6, 2011 at 1:45 pm |
      • sumday

        just wanted to let you know that your responses made me laugh out loud (in a good way).

        October 6, 2011 at 2:23 pm |
      • Dan

        Glad I could brighten your day!
        If you think this is funny, have a look at the comment section under "Best evidence so far that humans are still evolving, scientists say", also on the lightyears CNN site.

        October 6, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
      • Stinkstu

        Dan, I enjoy reading your comments. Do you have a blog anywhere?

        October 7, 2011 at 11:13 am |
      • Viktor

        Dan, you're f*cking amazing, marry me? XD

        October 8, 2011 at 2:24 am |
    • Rich

      Boy, that's dumb. Tooth fairies must also be real even though we don't see them because there is money under the pillows of children. God exists? Really? People invented the concept of god to give some hope to the poor and oppressed who have nothing in this life and nothing to look forward to. It also did not hurt to try to scare people so that they don't kill each other for no reason but the concept of god is obsolete now with rational human beings understanding that this is all there is. It still makes sense to be reasonable to other people but hoping for a wonderful afterlife or 72 virgins or something else is utter nonsense.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
    • pandoruix

      What your Omitting in the equation is that this has happened before with the last world power... It was called the Roman Empire. It was a Corrupted Republic with Rich people stilling everyones money and the Church was lending money for different people to go to war...... Sorry your late but this has happened before. Rome was Throwing Christians to the Lions and Then changed its mind when it seen it could make money off of it... Now we have lots of cool Historical Places to visit that was built on Lies, Rape, and the pillaging of Innocent People

      October 7, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
  22. JamieHaller

    I haven't read the above comments, but has anyone else wondered where the comet's water came from?

    October 5, 2011 at 8:57 pm |
    • ialsoagree

      Probably from the natural reaction of the two most common (reactive) elements in the entire universe (hydrogen and oxygen)?

      Hydrogen is the universe's most common element. Although technically helium is the 2nd most common element, helium is a noble gas and is otherwise inert (it doesn't react with other atoms except under extremely rare circumstances). Oxygen is the 3rd most common element. That makes water the 2nd most common molecule in the universe (second to molecular hydrogen, H2).

      October 5, 2011 at 9:57 pm |
      • guest

        the fact that these are common does not explain where they came from

        October 6, 2011 at 10:55 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ guest,

        I will direct you to an excellent answer from Chris R... "Stars, obviously, have a large amount of hydrogen. They also form a large amount of oxygen over time (fusion reactions will start moving up the periodic table as the hydrogen runs out. It tops out with iron – every heavier element was produced in the huge pressures and energies of a supernova). So you have abundant oxygen and hydrogen in space. As stars go nova they'll shed vast amounts of hydrogen and oxygen which will bond in space and form water. These water molecules are *everywhere* in the universe and spectral analysis of distant objects – like gas clouds and nebulae – clearly show the presence of water. The comets are, after all, essentially made of water and there are hundreds of millions of them in the Kupier Belt and Oort Cloud. This makes it very likely that there was a large amount of water in the primordial solar system. So why didn't the earth have all this water from the primordial solar system? All that depends on the heat of the early earth – if it approached 2500C water will spontaneously decompose into hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen would likely form oxides and the hydrogen would relatively quickly outgas. So there is no need to postulate a wide ranging long lasting chemical reaction producing all of the earths water 'domestically'. Also, if it was formed domestically the deuterium ratios don't match up with what we see. Some have argued that it would naturally approach that state but since it already matches the ratios seen in Kupier belt objects there doesn't seem to be any need to take that approach."

        October 6, 2011 at 11:00 am |
    • Seeker76

      It is a fair question and begins the process if infinite reducibility. Put another way, which came first, the chicken or the egg? You are heading to the origin which is the Big Bang. Personally, one has to ask why all the matter in the unverse in a single point exploded? What changed? Remember that this was before "time" even existed. So the word "change" wouldn't even apply. What caused that point of universal matter to "change" and explode into the universe. I believe it was God.

      October 6, 2011 at 1:30 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        which one?

        October 8, 2011 at 10:52 am |
  23. Wizza

    Your mom is an isotope with one extra neutron.

    October 5, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
  24. Peggy

    What is even more fascinating is that someone figured out how to turn this water into VODKA!

    October 5, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
    • Menos

      @ Peggy - I love you. I'm talking deep, Grey Goose martini binge night love here. Please don't break my heart!

      October 5, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
  25. Rafa

    Modern humans capable of reasoning have been around on this planet for what: 200 thousand years? The Universe is what: 14 billion years old? This is the equivalent of what half a second is to a year! Compared to the age of the Universe, humans don't even exist!
    And yet religions want us humans to believe we are so unique and special and that we are the masterpiece creation of some omnipresent/omnipotent entity that governs the Universe, who in a moment of creative genius decided the Universe was incomplete without us. That's an absurdity! Yet, the fact that most people believe (or want to believe) this is proof that we humans are not very smart after all, and not much of a masterpiece.

    October 5, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
    • Menos

      @ Rafa - your ignorant reductionist generalizations about what "religions" want us to believe is absurd. There is a very rich diversity of religious beliefs and practices in the world. Please educate yourself on the subject of religion before making profoundly stupid comments on the subject.

      October 5, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
    • sumday

      rafa- first look around- I mean go search this entire earth and tell me if you find anything "greater/smarter” than man. So then it’s not a giant leap for religion to say that man was created special when every observation we make we see that there is none like or even close to our intelligence. Second go and study quantum physics- do you know that simply by observing something you change the wave function of that particle- how is that that particle knows you observed it? Seems this universe NEEDS an observer which fits pretty nicely into what religions says about G-d creating this place for us. Pl like you humor me- you use your limited understanding of today’s knowledge to ridicule pl who believe, but tomorrow we learn more (like the advances in quantum physics) that shows just about anything is possible and that this entire universe in it’s complexity seems to be functioning in complete balance and harmony (strange out come for something that you claim had no planning or thought and is just random accidents). Just saying it’s hard to deny humans stand out different from all other living creatures that we know of, and that our observation alone can collapse a wave function into 1 single wave function (before the observation all wave possibilities exist at the same time) for you to then say nope nothing special about humans and no special purpose or design for them by a creator. It’s all just some random accident that has trillions of coincident and works in a specific manor. Just answer me this- How can you predict or calculate randomness and/or accidents? Yet we have discovered “laws” that allow us to predict and calculate how many things in this universe work- but if it was all random with no thought or planning there should be no laws/mathematical equations that allow us to predict such things.

      October 6, 2011 at 1:42 pm |
    • frespech

      And yet in a time frame of lets say 200 years compared to 200,000 years of human existence a quantum leap of intelligence has made it possible for us insignificant humans to build spaceships to carry us to other planets, to build satellites to observe stars ,planets asteroids, to question the origins of time and space, quite a feat of evolution I must say.

      October 6, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
      • Dan

        It's not a leap of intelligence, per say, but the geometric accumulation of knowledge. Spaceships have little to do with evolution, except in the sense that we had to develop an adequate brain to acquire the knowledge to build them. It took a very long time to develop that brain capacity, and then a very long time to actually begin to utilize it.
        Religion has done a great job of ensuring science moves more slowly than it otherwise would, though. That's not to suggest that plenty of religious people haven't advanced science, but to point out, for example, that medicine was hindered for many years due to pagan prohibition on the study of internal anatomy.

        October 6, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
  26. Tonelok

    @Rob
    My response to that is that if those try to morph God to the being behind science...
    .
    The big bang created everything, not just matter but in fact, time itself. Before the big bang time did not exist. There can not be a creator or orchestrator of the big bang because there physically couldn't be.

    October 5, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
    • martinipaul

      Science is morphing into god.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
    • Menos

      What an incoherent and illogical argument. The concept of God is a metaphysical, transcendent, and spiritual one. Here you are telling us how it's "physically" impossible for God to exist before the creation of the Universe. You remind me of the story about a baby chick who is absolutely convinced that nothing exists outside of the reality of his egg shell. Also, science is not convinced that our Universe is the only one. There are respected theories that postulate that our Universe is one of an almost infinite number. Come on man, crack open that materialist shell your trapped in.

      October 5, 2011 at 6:01 pm |
    • Wizza

      Time still does not exist, at least not how we understand it to be.

      October 5, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
    • pandoruix

      Exactly !!!!

      October 7, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
  27. MyTake

    Would all you creationist ignoramus' please not ruin an interesting idea by inserting you religion or bringing up baseless and ignorant arguments about how the whole thing is wrong (therefore the magical man in the sky did it). It over ... you lost and are losing more everyday. MOVE ON

    October 5, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
    • Menos

      Poor misguided and angry atheist. You have a pathetically shallow understanding of "God" as evidenced by your child like cartoon rendering of "that which nothing greater can be concieved". For many, God is understood as the underlying Source of Being and Univeral Intelligence that accounts for the reason that science is able to make any sense out of reality to begin with. Faith in a purposeless universe manifested from nothing but pure chaos and chance is much harder to rationalize than the Epistemological(sp?) God argument that recognizes that man didn't simply make up the fact that the world is pervasively intelligible, orderly, and awesome. Man does know that they are not the source of this underlying order that they are constantly discovering via science. They are not the source or cause of "Being" or of reality. They can't definitively answer the question , "Why is there something rather than nothing?" They can come up with outrageous theories, each requiring a huge leap of faith in blind chance, random physical interactions, and eons of time that together are supposed to account for the masterpiece of finely tuned subatomic and biochemical interactions that manifest and support the Universe as we know it. There's nothing rational about the atheist position. It's an absurd position to defend with so much confidence. I get agnostics, but confident atheism is nothing more than hubris, arrogance, and willful ignorance (usually soaked in bigotry and hate). The overbearing pessimism of many atheists accounts for their small numbers globally. Any growth in their ranks today is more a result of poor education and dull senses than scientific enlightment. A truly rational and scientific approach to the question of God (not your ill concieved cartoon character version of God) would lead to agnosticism, not a blind faith in an unprovable, subjective, religious *opinion* like Atheism. On the other hand, a casual oberver of reality could easily and rationally deduce a Supreme Being as a metaphysical foundation and font from which universal mind, laws, and life manifest. There's no "magic dude in the sky" here, just universal principles of creative will, elan vital, natural law, and the mystery of Being itself that the Atheist dogma doesn't bother to concern itself with.

      October 5, 2011 at 7:58 pm |
      • Menos

        Obviously hit the post button before running a spell check. Menos sends his most sincere apologies. ; )

        October 5, 2011 at 8:07 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Dear Menos,

        While I do not speak for all atheists, I will speak for myself. I did consider God, and the gods, and the simple truth is, there is no credible evidence for any of them. Therefore, I reject the notion that God (or gods) exists. That's all. Plain and simple. I don't hate your God anymore than I hate unicorns, leprechauns or the toothfairy... and there is as much evidence of these, as there is for your God. Purposeless existance? No, my purpose is survival, and the survival of my species. I also strive to better my life to make it easier for my society to survive. I have no religion, just like not collecting stamps isn't a hobby...

        and no, the existance of God is not plain to see by ANY rational person... if it were, there would only be ONE religion and ZERO contraversy.

        October 5, 2011 at 8:12 pm |
      • Menos

        @ F - There is ZERO evidence that Atheism is correct. That's the point here. Atheism is simply an opinion that isn't based on any science or logic whatsoever. Like so many of your ill informed kind, you confuse your inability to conceive and experience a higher Being as a verdict against the possibility of their being one. There's nothing scientific about eliminating a hypothesis based on a personal, highly subjective, emotional opinion. A proper, pure scientific stance on the question of God is agnosticism. Theism and Atheism amounts to faith without indisputable proof - plain and simple. You expose how shallow your effort was to investigate the possibility of God's existence by your weak minded and typical cartoonish Atheist comparison of a Creator concept to the Tooth Fairy. Are you 6 years old? Furthermore, you attack the possibility of the existence of a Source of Being based on humans having a diverse set of religions. That's ridiculous because if you ever bothered to read, for example, James' "The Variety of Religious Experience" you would realize that while there are many paths up the mountain, there's only one peak. In other words, at the most basic and fundamental level, what world religions have in common far out way their surface, window dressing differences. Until such time that you pull your bloated fat head from Uranus and stop taking the lowest common denominator of religious whack jobs (literalists / fundamentalists / extremists) as your sole reference to the deeper questions of existence, being, and meaning, you're doomed to never know what you don't know. Finally, your inability to follow an argument is striking. I never said that YOU were living a purposeless life, what I said is that is that Atheists, by definition, believe in a Universe that is a product of purposelessness. How you found purpose for your life in a world with no meaning and purpose is quite a feat. The fact that you sense, believe, and live a life of purpose clearly demonstrates that you're either dumb as dirt or confused about the true implications and logical conclusions of your hope free Atheism faith.

        October 5, 2011 at 11:24 pm |
      • Dan

        Menos, I almost don't know where to begin.
        You're absolutely right, there is zero evidence that the lack of belief in a god or gods is correct. There's also zero evidence that a belief in a god or gods is correct. You're just inexplicably, vaguely angry that he hasn't picked one. I draw from your comments that you wouldn't be angry if he was a Buddhist or Hindu, but you're angry because he doesn't pick one.
        You state that "a proper, pure scientific stance on the question of God is agnosticism." I thoroughly disagree. I don't consider agnosticism to be a philosophical position in any way shape or form. A (not) theism (the belief in a god or gods). Not (having) the belief in a god or gods. As opposed to having a belief in a god or gods. fimeilleur doesn't "know" there is no god. He merely has no belief in any one in particular, like any principled atheist.
        You move on to question his age (irrelevant, ad hominem) and refer to his argument as "childish." I'm not clear on how that's providing any meaningful substance to the debate, but "fail" nonetheless. His point is that he has no reason to believe in any particular deity, any more than he has reason to believe in the tooth fairy. From a logical, scientific perspective it's not falsifiable. That's the substance of the argument.
        Next you attempt to assert that the worlds religions are somehow compatible. This is....laughable, at best. Frankly, everything held dear by Christians aside from some basic moral tenants is readily contradicted in other religions. Are you suggesting Genesis is compatible with Xemu of the Galactic Confederacy's historical narrative (look it up)?
        You then proceed with more insults, ad hominem nonsense, and, to borrow your phraseology, "childish" references to "Uranus" (haha! You made a funny because it sounds like his sphincter!)
        I'll finish by asserting I find it sad that you can't find a sense of purpose in the vast, beautiful world we share with those we know and love, with all its wonder and opportunity, without a belief in an afterlife and a deity(s).

        October 6, 2011 at 12:01 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Dan,

        Thanks... I was watching Survivor with my family... I echo your final thoughts and wholly agree with your statements.

        October 6, 2011 at 12:12 am |
      • Adventt7

        I want to say thank you to the three of you for this amusing session of witt and verbal posture running between you. I had seriously forgotten how people could be so varied in their perception of the world that they are inexplicably all tied to. This little spat between you really illustrates how shadowed and small the fragment of glass we each have to percieve their world and how much we need eachother to get a better grasp of the whole view of what is going on. Thankyou all for sharing. I need to go spend some time with my Atheist, Agnostic and other Religious close friends this weekend, making sure they know how much I appreciate having met them and how their perspectives always adds so much extra for me to see out of this life of ours.

        October 6, 2011 at 11:41 am |
    • pandoruix

      Amen to that..........................!!!

      Pun Intended!!

      October 7, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
  28. Mark

    It's quite simple really:

    Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
    Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
    The Earth began to cool,
    The autotrophs began to drool,
    Neanderthals developed tools,
    We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
    Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
    That all started with the big bang!

    Now can we all please move along

    October 5, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  29. Rob

    Evolution happens on a certian level with all Earth's life. (Note) From what I have read, Man could not have come from ape's because there would have had to have been a quatum leap between ape and man to make the connection. This is where many Christians believe man was made.
    I personally believe God the creator, but also believe that he may have used comets to add water to Earth. If God created everything, they why would they be off limits.
    Also, please note that only frindge Christians think the Earth is 6000 years old. Generalizations are usually a shortcut to thinking.

    October 5, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
    • ialsoagree

      Rob, just a heads up, we did not "come from apes." We ARE apes.

      We are scientifically categorized as a "great ape." It's not a matter of *coming from them* – we ARE them. We also happen to share ancestors with other great apes.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  30. Tonelok

    @Maggie
    It is faulty reasoning to look at the end product and determine that it is too improbable to have happened. Assuming that our existence was always assured and evolution had to lead to us(Humans) is incorrect. We look, think and act the way we do BECAUSE of the chances, not in spite of them. Why are you the way you are? You just as easily been a boy/girl/brunette/blonde. Just in your parents making you, your DNA roulette began.
    .
    To look at life as a casino game and say 'the odds were stacked against us' and it couldn't have happened that way is silly.

    October 5, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  31. jrc

    If the comets put water on this earth, why then all of a sudden they stopped and secondly, why wan no water dumped on the other planes that would have made a planet like Mars be full of Ice if not water. People always trying to find a way of explanation instead of just accepting the fact that this planet and this universe was made by a Supreme being, who always way. its common sense that something made all of this. That something, all you non-believers is the same supreme being, entity, force that we believers call God. There is no such thing as the Bid Bang Theory unless something forced it to happen and that something is God who always was and always will be. Hard to accept, but real as your eyes can see and your mind can know that you are alive.

    October 5, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
    • jrc

      excuse my grammar, I was in a rush

      October 5, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • @JRC

      Listen bud.. the Moon, Mars, Venus and ALL the other planets and moons WERE bombarded... with meteors and comets. Why doesnt it happen anymore..? Well because our solar system has stabilized since the early birth pangs times. Did you notice WHEN these bombardments were happening? Have you noticed how cratered our Moon is? You are correct, bombardments like that are not happening with as much frequency because the orbits of planets have stabilized...so now you get occasional bombardments happening. We witnessed one happening about a decade ago into Jupiter...releasing massive amounts of energy...a planet killer for a planet as small as Earth, but pretty negligible on a massive planet like Jupiter.
      This is called ASTRONOMY. NOT to be confused with Astrology.
      As to your question about Mars... Mars DID have water on it at one time...shallow oceans and rivers... However, because it does not have the shielding that Earth has, and a thick enough atmosphere, as well as a number of other variables..that water 'boiled' away into space..and froze at the poles. Mars is now in a period of time where it is warming as it swings far closer to the Sun.. Those frozen poles and underground frozen air and water will seep to the surface.. This is already happening and will continue for quite a while. The Moon has no protection at all from the suns fierce solar winds...and immediately gets stripped of water and air that any comets might provide....hence, no liquid water on the Moon.
      PLEASE take an ASTRONOMY Class in a college. It may explain the wonders of the Universe for you better. If anything, it may also give you a fr better sense of how amazing your God is, and the full wonders of His Universe. Denying Science IS Denying God. Period. You are telling Him that you disapprove of How He continues to create in the Universe. I would NOT want to be in your shoes when you approach Him with that opinion. I think He will probably Smite you! :)

      October 5, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
    • Peggy

      Gawd your grammar is the least of my problem with your post. god seems to be answer for everything that you cannot explain. By your thinking god had to come from somewhere and so on and so on to infinity! Now I am sure this supreme being could careless about marriage licences and other 'rules' and simplfiled explanations you religious folks come up with and all in his name! don't you think? He must be sooo dissapointed at the amount of delusional, can't think for themsleves humans he created too huh?

      October 5, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
    • pandoruix

      No it was not god .................... man you people got to get it right... it was Santa Claus!

      October 7, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
  32. Dudley4018

    This is just a fad. They happen in science, too.

    Twenty years ago a father and son team propose a plausible(?) theory that a comet hit the NW edge of what is now known as the Yucatan Peninsula near Chickxulub, which created conditions sufficient to kill most animal life. Since then Hollywood has put our a myriad of doomsday movies about comets or meteors impacting earth, and the scientific community has proposed theories for scientific mysteries that include comets and meteors as delivery vehicles for DNA, H2O, disease, and just about every other thing that has no known solution.

    Bandwagoners. Nothing more. Please, science, come up with something plausible and not just some wide-eyed theory for which you manage to accumulate some speculative data. Properly, you look at ALL the data and see what it says. Here, you are making a theory and cherry-picking any data that appears to match. Sad science.

    October 5, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  33. Dudley4018

    Take out your high school calculator

    326 quintrillion gallons, 326 followed by 18 zeroes, give or take on earth, salt and fresh, according to How Stuff Works. How many gallons of water per comet, (PLUS the water that would have boiled off when there was not atmosphere at all, like Mars)? At 100,000,000 gallons per comet (100 olympic sized swimming pools with diving end) that's still 326 BILLION comets that had to strike; nearly 100 a year for 4 BILLION years. Not sure any celestial body aside from a star could tolerate that, much less a small, rocky planet.

    See what I mean?

    October 5, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • ialsoagree

      You're TERRIBLY misinformed.

      Firstly, Mars does have an atmosphere.

      Secondly, an atmosphere is not sufficient (nor required) to trap and contain gasses (so there would be minimal, if any, loss of water in Earth's early days, and even today). To expand on point two, it's a strong magnetic field and gravity that prevents atmospheric gasses from being stripped from a planet, that's how atmospheres form in the first place.

      Thirdly, your approximation of the amount of water on comets is completely arbitrary? Why not 100x less? Why not 10000x more? There are bodies in our very solar system that contain more water than Earth. There are asteroids (which aren't even composed entirely of water) that contain more water than you speculate the "average" comet impacting Earth had. A simple tweak of your numbers (that's no more or less accurate, since there's no data to suggest otherwise) makes it only require 1 comet. So what have you really proved, other than that you can make up a math equation without any data to support it?

      October 5, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
    • Dudley4018

      The Martian atmosphere is insufficient to keep water or water vapor. Do you deny this? I saw the special on planetary magnetism as well. Prove to me there was a magnetic field on earth in those very early days. Science does not theorize this.

      Yes, my figure for water was arbitrarily taken from, as the comment says, How Stuff Works. Google "How much water is on earth?" You can see for yourself. Top response. Do not forget fresh water, don't just use oceanic water. Also, if you like, calculate the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and add that. Then you may wish to calculate the water in all living things, and add that.

      So, you have a bit of work to do before you run your mouth again. Thanks for playing but you don't have the game. You know, The Game, La Cabeza. You don't have it.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
      • ialsoagree

        "The Martian atmosphere is insufficient to keep water or water vapor. Do you deny this?"

        YES, I DO deny this! This is ENTIRELY FALSE.

        Mars' MAGNETIC FIELD is too weak to maintain an atmosphere (including atmospheric water). An atmosphere is not necessary to form an atmosphere – otherwise no atmospheres would exist anywhere!

        "I saw the special on planetary magnetism as well. Prove to me there was a magnetic field on earth in those very early days. Science does not theorize this."

        Such a case is easy to prove, measure any rock that is subject to magnetism. No matter the age of the rock, it will provide information that can allow you to determine not only the existence of the magnetic field, but where the magnetic poles were.

        "Yes, my figure for water was arbitrarily taken from, as the comment says, How Stuff Works. Google "How much water is on earth?" You can see for yourself. Top response. Do not forget fresh water, don't just use oceanic water. Also, if you like, calculate the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and add that. Then you may wish to calculate the water in all living things, and add that."

        Which is all irrelevant to the issue of knowing how much water was being DEPOSITED BY COMETS.

        You don't know how much water each comet contained, so how can you possibly try to write a formula that requires that information, other than through academic dishonesty?

        "So, you have a bit of work to do before you run your mouth again. Thanks for playing but you don't have the game. You know, The Game, La Cabeza. You don't have it."

        Ad hominem. Last resort of those who can't actually support their arguments.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
      • pandoruix

        Its very possible a large icy object smacked into earth... Started our Rotation... Rotating Molten Metals creates a magnetic field. There are even some theories suggesting the moon hit earth in the early days of the Accretion process of our solar system. Im sure i read or seen a documentary here recently that said they found water on the moon as well?

        October 7, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
    • Dudley4018

      I see you write without thinking. You should be a scientist.

      Good day.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
      • ialsoagree

        Further ad hominem. You have no argument to make so you try to attack my character. Thanks for making it obvious that my argument is backed by rational through and evidence, and yours is backed by wishful thinking.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
      • MyTake

        That would make someone a bible-thumping robot. Scientist actually think for themselves ...

        October 5, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  34. iorhael

    The water came from God ultimately but He plausibly could have used comets as the delivery vehicle. Though I personally tend to think the water was already here to begin with (from God's hand). If that is proven otherwise, that is fine by me. I fully believe in science but believe God is behind that science.

    October 5, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • cappoman

      Herein lies the problem with religious rhetoric. The GOD facts morph as the science is proven. "God delivered water by comet". Well, why didn't that little known fact come out earlier?

      Sigh...

      October 5, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
    • WhatWhatWhat?

      Aliens could come to Earth and say that they made a mistake many years ago by coming to the earth, which started all the god talk to begin with. And that even though they had watched us for millions of years and have traveled around the galaxy, there was no god. The religious delusionists will still insist that those aliens are wrong, and they jumped to conclusions, and they haven't seen everything in the Universe, and that if they had faith like them, they too would be saved. Religion = Delusion.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
    • pandoruix

      what does gods hand look like. Does he have 5 fingers on each hand like us...?....

      October 7, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
  35. WhatWhatWhat?

    In the early years, when water was low, the comets crashed into the Earth after Chuck Norris' fist convinced them to.

    October 5, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
  36. Ron

    46% of the earth's crust is oxygen and hydrogen is the tenth most common element. Maybe it was already here? In addition, liquid water creates conditions for it's own existence, e.i. ice melts under pressure.

    October 5, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
    • Peggy

      lol No Maggie says it's frankincense and myrrh duhh

      October 5, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • ialsoagree

      Just to clarify your post a little bit, hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, however, it may only be in the top 10 of Earth's atmosphere/crust.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      ummm check your facts please... ice melts under pressure? really?

      October 5, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
      • ialsoagree

        Water expands when it freezes and contracts when it melts.

        October 5, 2011 at 9:41 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Which is not to say that ice melts under pressure... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phase_diagram_of_water.svg

        it shows the quite a different phenomena at different atmospheric pressures...

        October 5, 2011 at 10:04 pm |
  37. JoeT

    While I enjoy all the "Read Genesis 1" remarks, Genesis 2 actually has the water here first. So which is it? The myth appropriated from the Babylonians or the one taken from Egypt? Or might there be some other way to discern and learn where this water came from, maybe using some sort of system where we can test our assertions against observations?

    October 5, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
    • Schmoe

      Genesis 2 does not have an alternate account concerning the appearance of water. It is simply describing the process of watering the ground that apparently went on sometime in earth's distant past. There is no contradiction here.

      Most of the "myths" originated in Babylon and were then inherited by the Egyptians. Since the Bible describes Babylon coming into play immediately after the Flood, it's likely that any myths that were generated came from stories passed on by the people of that time.

      Interestingly, it is Babylon's archaeology that supports the Biblical account, not vice-versa. For example, many in years past doubted the story of the Tower of Babel. And then archaeologist George Smith found an inscription in a Babylonian ziggurat that read in part: "The illustrious tower offended the gods. In a night they threw down what they had built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech." – Halley's Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1965), p. 84.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
      • @Schmoe

        In other words, an earthquake or some similar event that seems to happen in the area with regular frequency.
        Buddy, it is simply WRONG that ALL the people on the planet had the same language. Tribes wandering in Australia and New Zealand as well as in North and South America had nothing to do with the Language of of the Babylonian empire. For that matter, at the time, neither did most of Africa, most of Asia, India and Europe.
        This is a myth. Pure and simple. Language itself evolved over thousands of years...and is still evolving today... Our English that we are communicating with now has changed so much in just the last century. Please, please, leave the mythical chatter to a non-science article.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
      • Schmoe

        Interestingly enough, multiple sumerian source tablets (sumer, as in the birthplace of civilization), speak of a single language spoken among all men.

        October 5, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
      • JoeT

        Babylon, or Byblos, is a great place to finally write down and codify the various scrolls of your religion and maybe even add to them, if you find a good story about hubris. Also, if you add such a story from your patron's mythology, it decreases the chances that your project will be shut down.

        October 5, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
  38. Kenno

    No, the water on Earth came from God

    October 5, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
    • Peggy

      Ok I'll give you that IF you can explain where god came from.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
    • cappoman

      Jesus, Kenno.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
  39. JinxGT

    It all makes sense now...comets crash into Earth bringing water, ammonia, methane, and carbon dioxide. The high temperatures and pressure from early Earth causes these ingredients to randomly combine into a "primordial soup" through some sort of random undiscovered science. From this primordial soup of simple molecular structures, they randomly combine to make more "complex" yet incredibly basic amino acids. Then they randomly combine to make more complex proteins then eventually make a single celled organism. Then the single celled organism conveniently has the ability to self replicate. Otherwise this random process would have to start from scratch again. From this point, the random self replicating single celled organism through a series of replications evolves certain favorable traits to improve survivability. And then from this single strain of life comes the rest of all species of animals including the devolution of certain traits for less superior ones...such as mating. Seems logical enough.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
    • Maggie

      too many chances, not possible.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
      • Peggy

        Hey Maggie, is that from you or did god just speak to you?

        October 5, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
      • dj crystar

        hey maggie, so is playing the powerball.....and someone actually wins "once in a while" so yeah i'll bekieve that before i'm asked to give 10%

        October 5, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
      • Billy

        It's a lot like the infinite monkeys over infinite time, only there is just a few bazillion atoms and molecules, and only 4 billion years... So we get imperfect things like platypus and people.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
      • MyTake

        Thanks for the well-reasoned argument. LOL This is typical creationist clap trap. Bump sticker slogans and regurgitated canards.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
    • Peggy

      Maggie wants to know what chapter of the bible that's from. Cause if it's in the bible it must be true.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
      • Maggie

        life is too complex to happen by chance.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
      • Peggy

        But yet you simplify it by saying 'god created it??!!! god who?

        October 5, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
      • ialsoagree

        Maggie, could you go ahead and define complexity for us?

        After all, I'm sure a math problem like "The positive limit as x goes to infinity of 0/x" is a "complex" problem for you. But to me, it's a "simple" problem, so isn't complexity relative to understanding? And therefor, depending on understanding, couldn't life be "too simple" to have been created?

        October 5, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
      • cappoman

        Maggie – a nuclear weapon is pretty complex, too. Complexity is not a barrier to natural formation over eons of time.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
      • WhatWhatWhat?

        Yeah, "too complex", right. Out of hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, across tens of billions of miles of space and time. If you knew anything about statistics, you would immediately see the odds would be a lot better than winning the lottery, and that happens all the time. The "complexity" falsification lie is used by christians to discredit evolution, but, ironically, life is not too complex that god couldn't have designed it. Right, keep deluding yourself.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
      • @Maggie

        Sorry hon, Complexity in Life doesnt need some bearded guy sitting in the clouds to direct it. If you knew anything about biology, you would know how many errors and earlier versions of genes are present in out DNA. Not just OUT DNA, but every creature out there. Any concept of "Intelligent Design" can be struck down pretty darn easily. There IS nothing intelligent whatsoever about the human body construction. Just look at our sex organs for example, and the plumbing problems inherent in it. Does it make sense to have urine and semen coming out of the same tube?? NO. Does it make sense to have the prostate gland causing a kink in one of the main tubes? NO. Does it make sense to have testicles hanging in such fragile bags between men's legs? HELL NO. Why do we have organs that no longer work such as the appendix? Why do all mammalian embryos go through similar development and why do we have GILLS in the womb? Why do we have so many copies of the Hemoglobin gene...when some are obviously non-functional, and some are related to species that are so different from us now..?
        Jesus Maggie... please use your 'GOD-given" power of reason. Yeesh.

        October 5, 2011 at 6:00 pm |
    • Alan Howe

      All jokes aside, the origin of life is pretty intriguing. I was impressed to learn years ago that fat molecules have hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends. Place a sufficient number in water, and they will naturally form a simple cell-wall. This wall creates a separate environment from the outside. What gets trapped inside? How many naturally forming cell walls do we need before one traps a strand of RNA capable of, inside this protected environment, replicating itself? Lots and lots of chemical-rich water out there...

      October 5, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
    • JinxGT

      Actually, I was being sarcastic. I'm not going to make claims about how life was formed or where it came from because there is absolutely no empirical evidence at this point to prove such claims. I'm just trying to prove that when looking at the Theory of Evolution objectively that it sounds pretty ludicrous. So when it comes to all this religion and science bashing, both parties make pretty empty arguments. So whether you want to believe a religion or Darwinism (arguably also a religion), that is your prerogative but it would be wise to be more humble when expressing your thoughts on other people's beliefs.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
      • ialsoagree

        But you weren't talking about evolution, you were talking about abiogensis?

        If I talked about how stupid the idea of Ra is, and then ended it with "therefor Jesus isn't real" wouldn't you think I was being an idiot?

        That's kinda what you did...

        There IS empirical evidence for evolution. We've observed evolution in labs on more than one occasion (the mutation of DNA in living things resulting in speciation). If you deny such evidence, you deny reality, it's as simple as that.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
      • Daniel

        Science isbased on the ability to observe, question, and test. Then revise, and repeat. Religion is based on faith. Evolution is a significant aspect of science, and it is quite testable. No religion can withstand the scrutiny of such testing. But I would agree, in part, with one of your assumptions: this is a massive question. Perhaps God created life using evolution....

        October 5, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
      • Chris R

        There is a lot of support for evolution. It is not a theory in the sense you are thinking of – which is a bunch of guesses that people just made. It is a scientific theory which means it has considerable support. Any single contrary piece of evidence would be enough to bring the whole structure down (that's how science works – it's called falsifiablity.) So far no one has presented any credible evidence that falsifies evolution.

        Also, it only look far fetch ed because you don't understand statistics or the time frames involved. Ya know that old saw about a million monkeys banging away on a million typewrites for a million years would create all the works of Shakespere? In the case of life you have trillions of amino acids banging away constantly over hundred of millions of years. Odds were that *something* was going to come out of that.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
      • JinxGT

        True...abiogenesis and evolution are strictly different sciences. It is possible that comets could have carried microscopic lifeforms from another planet to our own before undergoing an evolutionary process to make up modern life. My point is any claim about the origins of life is speculation at this point. Also, there is no empirical evidence of evolution and it has not been observed. It is simply a hypothesis made at the convenience of observations after the fact. The only thing we have proven in a lab is mutation which is empirically supported. Whether or not random mutation leads to speciation as evolution claims is a completely different beast.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
      • Chris R

        JinxGT – You really don't know what you are talking about when you say there is no empirical evidence for evolution.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
      • ialsoagree

        Jin,

        You're previous comment is BLATANTLY false.

        There are MANY publications of experiments in which related pairs of an organism (in one such study, fruit flies) are placed into separated populations and their descendents become unable to breed with each other. This is the definition of speciation, and is therefor empirical evidence that mutation leads to speciation.

        These results have been published, more than once, and the test criteria are available for anyone else to reproduce.

        You can wish these OBSERVED FACTS away, but that doesn't mean they actually do go away. Evolution as a process of speciation is observed fact. The mechanisms involved in evolution, as well as the suggestion that all existing life descended from common ancestors is theory – WELL supported theory in which mountains of evidence support, and not a single piece of evidence refutes.

        Further still, the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrates the formation of life from non-living molecules, and there are known processes that form amino acids and deoxyribose nucleic acid from simpler molecules through natural processes.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
      • JinxGT

        @ialsoagree: Please point me in the direction of one of these publications. The fruit fly experiment you're referring to if it is the same one I'm thinking of is two populations where one was fed starch and the other maltose to simulate geographic isolation. The results of the experiment was fruit flies that preferred mates from the same population but they were still biologically capable of breeding with the other group. How is that speciation? I can almost assure you every other publication you cite is based on observations of species already speciated and the speculation of a common ancestor. The other publications will be of observed species in the wild that is in the "process of evolution" based on mating preference yet are still biologically capable, no observation of speciation. Assuming that two groups will become biologically incompatible based on mating preference is hardly evidence.

        The Miller-Urey experiment produced monomers in ideal laboratory conditions. Also some controversy with the experiment presented by other scientists is that their lab conditions did not accurately mirror early Earth conditions. Either way, monomers are simple molecules...not life. I don't doubt that you can combine chemicals into more complex molecules because we do it on a regular basis. The dispute is can you go from a protein to a self replicating organism and there is no evidence of this. Just a hypothesis that given that proteins can be synthesized from basic molecules under the right conditions and if there is enough time then those proteins can synthesize into life.

        Btw, you might want to read this interesting article [blogs.discovermagazine(dot)com/notrocketscience/2010/11/01/gut-bacteria-change-the-sexual-preferences-of-fruit-flies/] and even though the scientist believes speciation will occur it is still an assumption at this point.

        October 5, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Observed evolution... please google "ring species", apply the theory of evolution to it... and it makes sense... apply creationism or special creationism to it and... well God must have intervened while we weren't looking.

        October 5, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
      • ialsoagree

        @Jin

        Check out experiments by Theodosius Dobzhansky and Olga Pavlovsky, specifically:

        "For example, Theodosius Dobzhansky and Olga Pavlovsky reported(13) in 1971 that a strain of fruit flies they collected in Colombia was at first fully interfertile with a strain collected in the Orinoco Basin. They kept the two stocks separate for about five years, and then crossed them again. This time the male offspring were completely sterile. A substantial amount of genetic isolation had developed in only five years."

        So much for your "every other publication" comment – only someone ignorant and desperate makes sweeping comments about "every [something]" being a certain way.

        Your limited knowledge on the subject is clearly displayed by your inability to talk about the actual experiments that show speciation. And your assumption that they don't exist, or only are examples of things found in nature in the process of speciating – rather than the above research which was done in a lab setting and is not based on simple preference, but actual inability to produce breeding offspring when crossed.

        October 5, 2011 at 9:53 pm |
      • JinxGT

        @ialsoagree: Did you even read their study? Here, is the summary of their discovery in their published research paper.

        "SUMMARY
        The origin in the laboratory of a sterility of male hybrids between strains which were previously fertile is described. The strain involved is the “new Llanos,” descended from a progenitor collected in the Llanos of Colombia. This strain was giving fertile hybrids with the Orinocan incipient species of Drosophila pcrulistorum. but is now producing sterile male hybrids. In evolving the sterility, the new Llanos has not become sexually isolated from its progenitor. New Llanos males continue to be accepted by Orinocan females, and vice versa.-The population from Raposo, Colombia, shows the same relationship to the Centro- American inrinient species as the new Llanos does to the Orinocan one. Alterations of the kind which took place in the Llanos strain in the laboratory occur also in nature. The genetic properties of two other transitional strains, Marco and Santa Marta, are described. The hypothesis is put forward that the process of speciation may be initiated by establishment of new symbiotic relationships between Drosophila and a virus or other microorganism."

        I don't know what YOUR understanding of the subject matter, but simple reading comprehension shows that Theodosius Dobzhansky and Olga Pavlovsky never claimed or suggested a new species but rather a new strain of species which was infertile, an incipient species. They hypothesize that this could lead to speciation but could not prove it. The Llanos strain is still a member of the Drosophila pcrulistorum species. So again, point me to this article that proves speciation. Or will you continue to abandon the scientific method for mere assumptions and speculations.

        October 6, 2011 at 12:03 pm |
      • JinxGT

        "Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced."

        Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan

        October 6, 2011 at 12:11 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Oh the beauty of research...

        "The ring starts on the shores of the northern North Atlantic with the herring gull Larus argentatus. It can interbreed freely with the American herring gull Larus smithsonianus,2 which occurs, surprisingly, across North America.
        The North American herring gull can interbreed with the Vega gull Larus vegae, which is a subspecies of the East Siberian gull (the only other subspecies is the Larus vegae mongolicus, which isn’t relevant to our story). That in turn can interbreed with Heuglin’s gull, Larus heuglini, which can interbreed with the Siberian lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus heuglini, concluding our trip across northern Siberia.
        The Siberian lesser black-backed gull can interbreed with the lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus, which bring us back to Europe, mostly around the Baltic Sea, though they share some territory with the herring gull.3

        These gulls form a species continuum, as you can see, but the herring gull cannot interbreed with the lesser black-backed gull.
        It’s hard to tell where one species ends and the next begins, but it’s undeniable that the herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull are different species.

        This is just one mechanism of speciation (allopatric speciation; these gulls inhabit much the same niches, so this is nearly entirely down to genetic drift, too), but it’s a plainly obvious one."

        BAZINGA!!!

        October 6, 2011 at 12:23 pm |
      • JinxGT

        @fimeilleur: Read this and let me know if you still have the same opinion. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih(dot)gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691675/pdf/15255043.pdf]

        October 6, 2011 at 12:45 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Do I still have the same opinion? Yes. Why?

        from the paper you linked to... "A case that closely approximates a true ring species is that of the Asian greenish warbler Phylloscopus trochiloides group (Irwin et al. 2001b). Ancestors of this complex spread from south of the Himalayas east and west around the Tibetan Plateau, north of which the ring closed between two taxa that are reproductively isolated, primarily through divergent songs that function in mate recognition. Song evolution is driven by sexual selection, which may produce rapid divergence. So reproductive divergence in these warblers seems to have come about through a combination of isolation by distance and sexual selection. The main difference between this and the herring gull case is that the ring-shaped range of the warblers has closed, leading to geographical overlap between the two terminal taxa, whereas in the gulls this is not (yet) the case.
        Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B (2004)"

        Ok, so in my quick search of ring species examples, you point out a paper that says "ring speciation in the herring gull hasn't happened yet" and you dance a victory dance... but you fail to notice the example IN THE PAPER of accepted ring speciation (the green warbler)... it's part of the section I quoted... in case you missed it again.

        My point was a driect rebuttal to your quote "Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced."

        So I may have gotten my bird wrong... but the phenomena has been directly traced.

        October 6, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
      • JinxGT

        Do all Neo-Darwinists lack reading comprehension skills?

        @fimeilleur: First, in the quotation that you cited, the Phylloscopus trochiloides "closely approximates" the ring species model but you'd have to cite Irwin's research for his findings. But of course you didn't read that study but I can abridge it for you, Irwin concludes that given certain conditions then "theoretically" gene flow can occur in a ring to create your "ring species" however he never affirms this and suggests more study is needed. More importantly, Irwin specifically states that this isn't proof of speciation but further understanding of ring species could lead to a better understanding of the process of speciation. [www.zoology.ubc(dot)ca/~irwin/PDFs/IrwinIrwin%26Price2001.pdf] Second, you conveniently skipped the part in Lieber's research where he states, "Although our results do not support a speciation model involving only isolation by distance, the origin of reproductive barriers in the herring gull complex does provide important insights into the speciation process." The publishings available that supposedly support speciation are only speculative. They all say in more or less words, we can't prove speciation but we came up with interesting findings that may suggest or help us better understand speciation. THIS IS NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE! Finally, the quote, "Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced," was made by famed evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan. As you kindly put it, "Oh the beauty of research..."

        My main argument has always been, Evolution is still a theory at this point and while there are many studies to support its claims it shouldn't be taken as fact. Mainly because none of those studies prove the crux of this theory which is speciation from random mutation. People should be encouraged to do more research and think outside of the norm to perhaps find the true "origins of species" which may or may not be Evolution.

        October 6, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
      • Dan

        "My main argument has always been, Evolution is still a theory at this point and while there are many studies to support its claims it shouldn't be taken as fact."
        Great! That's science! There's the theory of gravity, germ theory, heliocentric theory, string theory, quantum mechanics theory, etc. None of these are taken as immutable. However, they all have a great deal of evidence to support them.

        "Mainly because none of those studies prove the crux of this theory which is speciation from random mutation. People should be encouraged to do more research and think outside of the norm to perhaps find the true "origins of species" which may or may not be Evolution."
        Absolutely! That's probably the most important tenant of science! Studies, tests, and research are conducted every day by incredibly smart individuals attempting to reproduce, advance, and refute or confirm the great many theories of science. Alternative theories are proposed, and either supported or shot down on a regular basis. Incredible advances are being made in physics as we speak.
        I'd like to explicitly hone in on the idea of "doing more research". I could not agree more. We need more scientific research, and we need people to stop standing in the way of these important advances. We also need parents to stop standing in the way of their children getting a good education on the sciences. The amount of scientific illiteracy I encounter on a daily basis is astounding. It makes me sad. We're so very, very capable of so much.

        October 6, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
      • JinxGT

        @Dan: Some theories are more proven or grounded than others. There is very sound evidence to support germ theory, quantum theory, theory of gravity, etc. and many findings have been made to support the initial hypothesis of these theories. On the other hand, the Theory of Evolution is one of the least proven theories, yet it is practically worshiped like it is the Second Coming. The fact that people accept Evolution so unequivocally is detrimental to the scientific community, it should be taught and recognized with a grain of salt. Yes there are strong correlations between certain species and yes there is fossilized evidence to suggest intermittent species, but correlations and suggestions are weak arguments. Especially when these weak findings are compared to other touted theories in the science community that went through the rigors of mathematical proofs and direct observations. We do need to do more research and as long as that is what is taught then we are on the path to discovery, but as of now both Creationists and Neo-Darwinists stand in the way not because they are right or wrong but they approach the subject matter with an innate bias.

        October 6, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
      • Dan

        "Some theories are more proven or grounded than others. There is very sound evidence to support germ theory, quantum theory, theory of gravity, etc. and many findings have been made to support the initial hypothesis of these theories. On the other hand, the Theory of Evolution is one of the least proven theories, yet it is practically worshiped like it is the Second Coming. "
        But that's where you're wrong! If you were to study the theory of gravity you'd learn that IT is the shaky theory. We can't readily account for why the universe doesn't tear itself apart, so we have all these mathematical fix-its with no empirical evidence whatsoever like dark matter and dark energy. If you start to look into all the struggles and mind-benders we're encountering with accretion disks of black holes, why gravity is as weak as it is, how gravity is transmitted, etc., you'll realize there's *far* more reason to believe in evolution than gravity. Evolution has mechanisms – natural selection, genetics. Gravity has um...gravitons? Evolution has survived *millions* of attempts at falsification. Gravity? Nope. It fails our tests. Try to make what we know of the universe stick together under our understanding of gravity, minus "dark matter" (evidence-less fudge-factor), and galaxies literally tear themselves apart under our mathematical models. Evolution is one of the most proven, established theories in science. You just don't want it to be.

        "The fact that people accept Evolution so unequivocally is detrimental to the scientific community, it should be taught and recognized with a grain of salt."
        Absolutely! Dogma is always bad. All theories should be taught "with a grain of salt". That's science! It's great! We always learn new things.

        "Yes there are strong correlations between certain species and yes there is fossilized evidence to suggest intermittent species, but correlations and suggestions are weak arguments. Especially when these weak findings are compared to other touted theories in the science community that went through the rigors of mathematical proofs and direct observations."
        Refer to my earlier comments on gravity. If you like, I'll tear apart other theories for you as well.

        "We do need to do more research and as long as that is what is taught then we are on the path to discovery, but as of now both Creationists and Neo-Darwinists stand in the way not because they are right or wrong but they approach the subject matter with an innate bias."

        Again, absolutely agree with you. More research is *always* a good thing. Methods? Sometimes methods of research are themselves bad. But overall research is always a good thing.
        You'll see me arguing evolution, because it's a great theory. That doesn't mean I wouldn't drop it in a second if we found, to quote another poster of similar persuasion, the "precambrian rabbit". It just means most people are not even capable of beginning to have a high-level debate regarding these things, and need to become further educated in order to do so.

        October 6, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
      • JinxGT

        @Dan: Actually, dark matter is not as unfounded as you claim. I saw a professor from the University of Chicago do a guest lecture at the Hayden Planetarium and she provided mathematical evidence for "dark matter." The bending of light, speed of galaxies, and blue/red shifts match up mathematically with a hypothesized dark matter however it is very well possible that there is another source other than dark matter that makes up this mathematical difference. Dark energy is another beast entirely which is needed for our laws of conservation of energy more so than gravity.

        As for Evolution being one of the more sound theories, I ask you as I have asked others to please provide empirical evidence of speciation by random mutation. I can give you a hint, there isn't any. Where other theories may break down in certain situations such as quantum mechanics on a cosmic scale, at least the initial hypothesis given the specified conditions hold true and is very soundly proven mathematically. Evolution on the other hand makes the initial hypothesis that random mutation can cause speciation and there is not a single piece of observed evidence to support this claim.

        October 6, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ JinxGT,

        You claim the theory of evolution is pretty weak... Proponents of Intelligent Design consistantly try to draw up a list of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientist who dissent from Darwinism"... Now, because we all know that science isn't proven by the number of people who supports any given theory, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) responded with the "tongue-in-cheek" Project Steve, maybe you're familliar with it...

        The statement is as follows:
        Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

        To date 1167 scientists with the given name of Steve (or accepted variations thereof) have signed on to this list... roughly 1% of scientist have the given name Steve...

        What does it prove? the NCSE has a sense of humour... that's all.
        The theory of evolution has been robustly tested and retested and restested and retested for the last 150+ years... If it was as weak as you claim... why is it still around?

        You ask about random mutations... I submit that fusing two genes together, for no apparant reason is pretty random... and as it's not normally seen in nature, it must be a mutation...

        All members of Hominidae except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere The evidence for this includes:
        The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.
        The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere. The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.

        Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."

        Is this random enough for you? Is it mutation enough for you? Do you have evidence to cotradict the findings? Please... I'm all ears.

        October 6, 2011 at 7:38 pm |
      • JinxGT

        @fimeilleur:

        I don't know why you're bringing up intelligent design as that has absolutely no weight in this discussion/arguement other than trying to create an arguement against no one. You are under the false assumption that if you don't believe in Evolution that you must believe in Intelligent Design, but this is not true. I believe that we have yet to discover our origins and that evolution until proven otherwise is a dead end. Also I see little relevance of some sarcastic petition of the scientific community. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, etc. made some of the greatest discoveries for mankind contrary to the beliefs of some international scientific club. If this Project Steve is simply a comical retort for something else presented by others in the scientific community, then it only weakens the validity of their claims. Really, I see these statements as baseless, empty and desperate grasps to debunk my claims which is that there is no evidence of speciation through random mutation (Still waiting for anyone to cite a single observed instance of speciation or non-speculative evidence).

        I do not disagree with the claims about the similarities between the chromosomes of humans and other great apes. But then again our DNA structure is at least 97% similar to every other mammal too. For which you can make the claim we all evolved from the same ancestral life form or can be rebutted that all things living require certain chromosomes and as genes define the appearance and characteristics of life forms then it is logical that species with similar features and characteristics would share similar genes. This doesn't necessarily support the claim that one species led to another.

        Nor do I disagree with random mutation, it happens all the time and some are harmful or fatal while others can actually be a positive trait. Sickle cell is a perfect example of a genetic mutation which by itself makes a human more resistant to malaria but when paired causes sickle cell anemia. What evolution would say is that if you take a population of sickle cell carriers and a population of non-sickle cell carriers, then after enough generations they would become separate species. By the way, dodging my question and rebutting with your own question doesn't strengthen your arguement.

        In your expert opinion, how long does speciation take? All these examples that are being cited for speciation (which I cited before, the actual researchers never make a claim for speciation but rather hypothesize that the proven method may lead to speciation) occurring in the order of approximately 20 generations? Would 100 generations be enough for speciation? Infertility? I assume it would have to be more since Native Americans migrated to North America approximately 10,000 years ago and generously assuming they had a life expectancy of 100 years, then they were at least 100 generations removed from Spaniards yet I don't recall any cases of infertility between the two races that would indicate speciation. How come? In fact, last I checked Native Americans are still homo sapiens. How about dogs? There are numerous breeds of dogs with varying genetic structures that are purebred yet there is no case of speciation there. Even wolves can still breed with dogs because they are the same species despite different geography, diets, behavior, etc.

        Honestly, throw me a bone here as to why you so adamantly believe in Evolution when the evidence is no stronger than saying there are deities simply because populations of man separated geographically all drew pictures of them on pottery.

        October 6, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        You asked for empirical evidence of random mutation leading to a new species... I thought I covered that pretty well... random... mutation... chimpanzee... human... I don't think I dodged your question... I thought I was hitting it head on... maybe I'm wrong... but I guess you don't have evidence to the contrary (speaking of dodging questions).

        How many generations does it take? I'd postulate that different species have different thresholds... Therefore, I couldn't give you a definite answer without contributing significant research to the project... (and I never claimed to be an expert) As for dogs, they are a documented case of specialized breeding by man to bring out the traits desired by man...

        Your final question... why hold adamantly to evolution... First of all, there are over 27 different scientific fields that support Evolution (gradual change over time) Creation has... nothing, so don't try to say they have the same weight in evidence... secondly, because there is no credible alternative presented... or are you holding back... you mentioned you think it is a false dichotomy... spill it... enlighten me

        October 7, 2011 at 12:51 am |
      • JinxGT

        @fimeilleur:

        That isn't empirical evidence. The research of J. W. IJDO in "Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere fusion" [www.ncbi.nlm.nih(dot)gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649/pdf/pnas01070-0197.pdf] proves that humans had an early ancestor with 48 chromosomes that at some point fused to become 46. Since man is not directly descendant from the current great apes, it is merely speculated that the current great apes and early man shared a common ancestor as J. W. IJDO concludes. An alternative hypothesis is that the similarities between great apes and man coincides with the similarities physiologically yet early man and early ape were two distinctly different species that both had 48 chromosomes and J. W. IJDO's research would also support that claim. I do not refute that humans have undergone genetic change, but I do refute that these changes will lead to a new species as suggested.

        Even if we assume a common ancestor, there are complications that are ignored. First, was the fusing sudden or gradual? If it was sudden, then how was the new 46 chromosome hominid fertile with the still 48 chromosome hominids? Modern cases of species interbreeding with different species leads to infertile offspring meaning it would have be a change of an entire population simultaneously perhaps from some cataclysmic event or alternatively enough interbreeding eventually led to fertile offspring. More likely was that the fusing of the chromosomes occurred gradually in which case where is the evidence for the intermittent species. Pretty convenient that the species needed to link humans and great apes to a common ancestor is missing. Secondly, where are the humans with 48 chromosomes? If this were the case, then most likely these 48 chromosome humans are extinct because of a selective disadvantage compared to their 46 chromosome counterparts. So the fusing of the two chromosomes provides some sort of selective advantage but this is yet to be proven. Again, I fail to see how this research is empirical.

        As for the dogs, you have seemingly proven my point, we have bred dogs for specific traits and despite this separation from other breeds of dogs, there is no indication of speciation.

        I do not refute genetic mutation. I firmly believe there was early man and that there was mutations that made modern humans. I do not agree that a species can mutate favorably to such a degree that it creates a separate species. I do not have a magic answer for the origins of man because if I did, then I'd be a very well paid research scientist and author. But as far as I'm concern, Theory of Evolution at this point is as good a guess as any and I have as much confidence in it as I do in the existence of gravitons (a hypothetically gravity related particle that hasn't been empirically proven or observed).

        October 7, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        So you don't have an alternative...

        October 7, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
      • JinxGT

        Why do I have to have an alternative? No thanks, I'd rather have no bias and be open-minded to all possibilities.

        I have no problem with people that accept the Theory of Evolution and it very well could be true. But at this point in time, it is not proven and it is founded on speculative research. The "science" to support the theory of evolution does not conform to the traditional rigors of the scientific method that all other theories go through. As convenient and reasonable as the Theory of Evolution may seem, I will not give exception and make unproven leaps in logic to its benefit. So until unequivocal evidence is provided to support the claims of Neo-Darwinists, they need to take a step down off the high horse as if they are some sort of superior intellect.

        October 7, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Ok, JinxGT,
        You don't have an alternative, you aren't trying to find one, yet you accept that the theory may be true but refuse to accept the evidence supporting it... 150 years of scientists and creationists trying to debunk the theory, the most heavily attacked scientific theory in the world today, yet it stands up to all the scrutiny... You accused me in believing in a "false dichotomy" that it's either Evolution or Creationism... but are unable or unwilling to show me an alternative.

        Let me direct you the the NCSE, specifically Dr Eugenie Scott. You have a lot of points that I can't directly refute, but I'm pretty sure she can. Submit them... you may be the one who sets the whole ivory towers crashing down... (I doubt it, but... there's a shot). But until then, Evolution is the strongest theory available that explains the diversity of life on this planet. I thank you for bringing my attention to the language used in the studies that I've cited... I will look into it further... and expand my knowledge...

        October 8, 2011 at 1:23 am |
    • Daniel

      Keep in mind, this is over a 4 BILLION year period. That is indeed a lot of chances. Both to fail, and to succeed.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
    • Chris R

      Actually, that is entirely possible. Lets say some of these early self replicating molecules were dead ends and everything *di* have to start over from scratch. So? There were *millions* of years for it happen. Hundred of millions of years. Based on everything we know life started forming somewhere between 300 Million and 800 Million years *after* the oceans started to form. Lets say the chance of life arising in any particular year is 1 Billion to 1. Over the amount of time we're talking about you have better than even odds it's going to happen. So it *does* not seem unlikely to happen. At all.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • cappoman

      Slow down, Jen. We're only talking about water here...

      October 5, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
    • Religious sects

      Simple explanations from simple minds.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • MyTake

      Maggie says life is too complex to be formed. It must be true. Personally I don't think I came from a sperm and a egg. I mean come on .... they are so small and could never form into a person ... ;-)

      October 5, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  40. Mike

    Actually, it came from a comet that came close to earth, but then Robert Duvall blew it up with a nuclear detonator.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
  41. james

    Actually a giant piece of dark matter, made of ice went into orbit around the sun and left a giant ring of ice and was scooped up by the planets, along with some living matter like a virus, from outer space.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
    • Mike in NYC

      So wait ........ humans are an extra terrestrial virus??? lol

      October 5, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
  42. Alan Howe

    "Any water would have evaporated immediately." So what? Evaporation is not a process for leaving the planet. Water vapor is denser than atmospheric gases. It hangs out in the atmosphere only until it condenses and precipitates. It would not leave. Rather, like the less dense atmosphere, it is trapped in Earth's gravity. Now, why would comets produce or collect water and planets not? Why would the planet have all sorts of other molecules and not water? No good reason...

    October 5, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • Chris R

      YEs, there would have been some water accumulated in the accretion process. The planet would have lost a certain amount of that primordial water due to outgassing into space. While there would have been some water without cometary impact it likely would't be anywhere near the amount we see now.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
      • Alan Howe

        You are privileging comets over planets in the collection and production of water. I do not understand why. Planets are much more chemically active than comets.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
      • Chris R

        I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. Are you trying to say that water formed spontaneously on the earth from free hydrogen and oxygen? That *is* a possibility if you hypothesize that earth had a thick hydrogen blanket as its first atmosphere which interacted with oxides in the crust. However, you don't need to go that route as water is one of the most abundant molecules in the universe. Stars, obviously, have a large amount of hydrogen. They also form a large amount of oxygen over time (fusion reactions will start moving up the periodic table as the hydrogen runs out. It tops out with iron – every heavier element was produced in the huge pressures and energies of a supernova). So you have abundant oxygen and hydrogen in space. As stars go nova they'll shed vast amounts of hydrogen and oxygen which will bond in space and form water. These water molecules are *everywhere* in the universe and spectral analysis of distant objects – like gas clouds and nebulae – clearly show the presence of water. The comets are, after all, essentially made of water and there are hundreds of millions of them in the Kupier Belt and Oort Cloud. This makes it very likely that there was a large amount of water in the primordial solar system. So why didn't the earth have all this water from the primordial solar system? All that depends on the heat of the early earth – if it approached 2500C water will spontaneously decompose into hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen would likely form oxides and the hydrogen would relatively quickly outgas. So there is no need to postulate a wide ranging long lasting chemical reaction producing all of the earths water 'domestically'. Also, if it was formed domestically the deuterium ratios don't match up with what we see. Some have argued that it would naturally approach that state but since it already matches the ratios seen in Kupier belt objects there doesn't seem to be any need to take that approach.

        October 6, 2011 at 10:26 am |
    • @Allan Howe

      Allan... Planets ARE more chemically active than comets... that is very true. I think you are forgetting where everything in the solar system came from. The SUN is FAR more active than all of it. When the Sun was born in this stellar nursery... the chemical processes and gravitational effects produced by the accretion disk created all of this rubble. Comets and meteors and asteroids are the left-over rubble. The planets are the hugest parts of that left over rubble from the birth of our Sun.
      This process is ALSO observed throughout our universe! We SEE Suns being born in stellar nurseries, and Suns dying all the time- whether it is by nova, supernova, shredded by a black hole...whatever. I dont know why you would think that our own Sun had some sort of vastly different history than the history that we see all over the rest of the Universe. That would be 'magical thinking'. Please save that for Harry Potter.

      October 5, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
      • Alan Howe

        That's A-l-a-n, thanks. I do not think our sun had no role. Why would you jump to that conclusion? My point is that the larger, more dense Earth would accrete more than a mere comet, including more water if water was among the material to be accreted. Hence the word "collection." Second, combining hydrogen and oxygen requires a bit of energy. Where do we find that on a cold comet? On the other hand, a volcanic Earth has plenty of spark available to join the two. Hence the word "production." Far more logical to me that water was of Earth and not delivered here in any significant amount by comets. Not to say they brought none, but delivery by comet does not seem to be a requirement for water to exist on Earth.

        October 5, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
      • Dan

        Alan, the formation of water is exothermic, not endothermic.

        October 6, 2011 at 8:48 am |
  43. oksana

    I have a theory...would anyone like to hear it?

    October 5, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  44. Maggie

    Genesis 1:1 states that "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth'. Regardless of earth's age that statement will always be true.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
    • Rational Thinker

      Thata a Judeo Christian point of view based on faith (and a book) and not all of us are Christians – so its your truth. Science is mine.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
      • Maggie

        regadless how old is the planet that statement is true for it never mentions the time the earth was formed.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
    • Peggy

      So you get all your answers from a dusty old book written by dudes hanging out in the desert. Of course they thought it was something so simple. They also thought the earth was flat. Wish I could live to see the day when religion is taught as the biggest scam in history.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
      • believer

        the bible does not say the earth is flat. in fact quite the opposite:
        Isaiah 40:22
        He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
        Maybe if you spent a little less time trying to deliver superficial stabs to christianity and a little more time researching what the bible actually says you may be able to participate in an educated debate on the matter

        October 5, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
      • hereitis

        Peggy oh Peggy – Today is your day to learn something new. Believe!!!!

        In Isa 40:22 the earth is said to be a "circle" in the KJV. The Hebrew word translated "circle" is "chug" meaning a SPHERE. "Chug" is translated "circle" here and "compass" in Prov 8:27, but means a sphere or ball. God's people since the time of Isaiah the prophet knew that the earth was a "sphere" or "ball" and not flat. The ancient people who thought the earth was flat either did not know, or did not believe the Old Testament Scriptures! Even our English word "atmosphere" means a "sphere" of "air"!

        October 5, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
      • MyTake

        A circle is a 2 dimensional disk not a sphere ... wrong again.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
      • Peggy

        What.....I Believe!!! In the tooth fairy(left me money under my pillow) so for fact she's real, ya SHE, oh and Santa Clause because I saw him with own eyes at the MALLLLL

        October 5, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
      • nick

        “The phrase of Isaiah 40:22, “the circle of the earth” is very controversial. There are five main views of this phrase. The first interpretation says that the word “circle” means “sphere” indicating that the earth is a sphere. This view seems most unlikely since we have all ready seen that the Hebrew word gh means “circle,” and it seems very remote that it means “sphere” because of the context, and there is a better Hebrew word for “sphere,” rwd. In Isaiah 22:18 the word rwdis translated “ball.” If the LXX translators understood gh as “sphere,” they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. Plugging the meaning of “sphere” into every passage that gh occurs will result in awkward interpretations.”

        October 5, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
    • jayfree33

      Take your rationale back to the Middle Ages were it belongs

      October 5, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
      • Dogma6

        Thank you! I completely agree!

        October 5, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
    • Daniel

      The Big Bang?

      October 5, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
    • Chris R

      Science can be used as a tool to understand the depth and meaning of God's work. Let's say Gen 1:1 is true. Is it literally true? No, that's highly unlikely. However, with the use of science, math, and logic we can come to understand how the universe and the Earth did form. In that we can, if we so choose, see the vast subtlety of God in the workings of the cosmos. Remember, science doesn't answer the metaphysical 'why?' it only addresses the 'how?'. If you want to believe that God started the whole thing going then that's fine and isn't, in spite of whatever anyone may tell you, at odds with science. However, if you start denying the reality of science – if you reject the gift of intelligence that god gave you, then that is a problem and, from my point of view, an insult to God for failing to live up to your full potential as an intelligent human.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
    • Dogma6

      Religion is complete B.S.
      The only reason man created religion is to explain things he could not explain and to try to give everyone morals and teach right from wrong. This was in a time with no modern science to tell us facts and no law enforcement and general knowledge of right from wrong.

      The only place religion has in modern society is as a moral teaching tool. But ask gay people what they think of religious morals and they will tell you that is B.S. too! Especially when the pope himself helped to hide/ignore compalints of american preists molesting boys. I doubt a REAL supreme being would want a person like that to be his reprisentative on earth. Just more proof that religion or at least catholicism was man made and is nonsense. And what about the second coming of christ that was supposed to have happened by now... more proof.

      Stop following the sheep and think for yourself.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  45. Brad

    Wanna know how water got here, read Genesis 1

    October 5, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • Rational Thinker

      With alll the knowledge here....such statements are astounding. Bible couldn't even guess the earth was round. If that fundamental fact was incorrect, how can you go to more complex concepts about the universe???

      October 5, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
      • Derek

        "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." Isaish 40:22

        Yeah, sounds like scripture says the earth flat, doesn't it?

        October 5, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
      • MyTake

        *Sigh* Yes ... yes it does because a circle is 2 dimensional ... it's not a sphere. You should have stayed awake in high school.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
    • FBMarky

      Genesis is a fairy tale. If you truly believe that garbage, you are not worthy of being a human being. Please, do all you can to get yourself to heaven as soon as possible so the rest of us can live in the real world without your ignorance.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
      • Daniel

        Well.... let's not be so harsh. Is it possible that Genesis is a very simplistic explanation for a rather complex issue? If there was a God, explaining the origins of the universe in today's scientific terms, to people thousands of years ago, would have been nonsense. So perhaps a simplsitic explanation was enough. "let there be light" isn't a bad description of the Big Bang.....

        October 5, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
  46. bobster

    comets are only a small part of the ingredient that makes-up the soup. yes people, you're from this big bowl of yum-yum, so get a clue what the well you thinking.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
  47. TampaDude

    Wow...the level of scientific ignorance in most of these comments is astounding...and I'm not even talking about the religious nonsense.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
  48. Nyak

    How many comet strikes would it take to deposit 350 billion billion gallons of water? I don't know the alternate scientific theories but common sense tells me those sources would likely play a much bigger role than comets.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
    • B50 Alpha6

      One. Maybe 2.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
    • Maggie

      too many.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
      • ialsoagree

        Seeing as Ceres (the largest body in the asteroid belt) has more water on it than Earth (200 million cubic kilometers of water, in fact), it isn't unreasonable to suggest that Earth's water came from foreign bodies.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
    • Hugo

      Common sense and science don't work so well together. Explain the behavior of electrons using common sense. (Good luck.) So, let's just toss quantum mechanics. Now let's see if you can explain the transist effect without quantum mechanics. OK, now we don't have transistors. Then we don't have integrated circuits. Then we don't have personal computers.

      Common sense just proved that your computer doesn't exist. Yet common sense also says your computer exists.

      Common sense fails.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
    • Chris R

      It would require several million comets. That seems absurd but simulations and other evidence indicates that this is precisely what happened. Lunine, J.I., 1999: Earth: evolution of a habitable world, pg 131 The funny thing is that science is often at odds with common sense. Of course, common sense often comes around to embrace the views of science.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
      • Nyak

        Cool, thanks

        October 5, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
  49. Rick Perry

    Everything was created instantly by the magic wand of an invisible sky fairy about 6000 years ago. Global warming was created by the invisible underground fairy to punish humans for homos. That is it. Stop asking questions.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • Bob

      Takes less faith to believe that than comets brought the water. Did you ever look at how much water is on earth? Comets brought it all?????

      October 5, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
      • Maggie

        Actually it will a lot more faith.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
      • J.

        Yes.. Over billions of years! I understand people chucking an idea simply because of human ego, and people's inability to wrap ones mind around exactly how much time has passed before we got here. Trust me though.. There was plenty of time!

        October 5, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
      • SFC Mike

        It's only "a lot" of water because you're only considering the surface of the earth. As a percentage of the earth's total mass, water is extremely scarce – only a tiny fraction of a percent of earth's mass, we just see most of it because it was deposited later in the formation of the solar system. We have observed disk shaped protoplanetary dust clouds around other stars, so our models of how this solar system formed are not far off the mark. We know there is water in comets, in asteroids, in interstellar space, so it's not like water is that rare. There would be millions of collisions over the course of several hundred million years. What is more remarkable is that the earth has a combination of proximity to the sun and sufficient mass to retain a dense enough atmosphere such that the water which did arrive here could exist in liquid form, AND did not evaporate back to space like the majority of water that was once on Mars.

        The amount of water that would have been deposited on earth isn't particularly

        October 5, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
    • D

      Lol, sadly, its what they think.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
    • Hugo

      If you are going to trash creation as given by the Bible, at least get it right before you trash it.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
    • Menos

      @ J - you Scientific Materialists / Positivists are an interesting lot. You put all of your faith in science, which in turn implies that the universe is consistently intelligible and orderly from the moment of the Big Bang to present. There would be no scientific laws or predictability in the cosmos to speak of without original / primordial order. Human minds observe and discover this original order - it's not a fairy tale that we make up. The Universe is something we can make sense out of based on observed natural laws that preceded our species by billions of years. You have your equations and never stop to ask the obvious question: Who breathed fire into these equations to actually make them exist, create, and support Being and Reality in the first place? Your glib answer is time. Complete nonsense in that you would have us believe that given enough "time" a room full of monkeys banging away on keyboards would eventually create a literary masterpiece like "Hamlet". No need for the creative genius of Shakespeare - just give the monkeys enough time and pure chance will produce great literary works just as pure random chance will create a Universe of mind bending order, complexity, elegant laws of physics, rich diversity of life, and eventually conscious, moral beings. The monkeys will never produce Hamlet no matter how many eons of time you give them. If that is true of "Hamlet", it's even more true of this awesome cosmos we find ourselves in. Man is a masterpiece of creation and it takes an incredible leap of blind faith (closed mindedness) to believe that we are simply products of pure chance, meaninglessness, and gobs of time. To be fair, I think the Fundamentalists who deny scientific evidence of evolution (aka the Supreme Mind's creative process) are just as closed minded as the Positivist's denial of any metaphysical reality beyond what we can perceive through our senses. Both hard line / closed minded positions are ridiculous to the point of absurdity.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Didn't you try this line before? and weren't you thoroughly thumped then too?

        October 7, 2011 at 1:07 am |
  50. Dadlious

    No. Comets have too much argon. If water came from comets, then the argon on the comets would also have come to earth. The atmosphere would be mostly argon, instead of mostly nitrogen.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • klay

      lol please cite your sources....

      October 5, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
      • Waku 400

        Beer. X100

        October 5, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • Butchie67

      So, let’s look at commits as the source:
      1. What is the “average” size of the commits that have hit the earth over the past 4 billion years?
      2. What is the “average” water content of the “average” sized commit?
      3. How many cubic feet of water is there on earth?
      4. How much of the “average” water content actually made it through the atmosphere to rest on earth?
      5. How many hits would it have taken to provide item 3 above?
      And finally, how much of the “average sized commit was solid matter? You know dirt. If the water to dirt ratio of the “average” sized commit was 50/50 then the commits would have placed the same cubic footage of dirt on earth as water. Where did all that dirt go. Or was the earth the size of our moon when all this bombardment started?

      October 5, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
      • Katrina

        whooooa. Comet. whoa.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
      • Chris R

        1) Yes, the comets would have added to the mass of the earth. Probably by a substantial amount. After all, we're talking about millions of billions of gallons of water. That's a lot of mass. Anyway, why do you find that unlikely? The earth formed by accretion. That means little bits of stuff sticking together. A good amount of that stuff would have been large asteroids, comets, and so forth.
        2) And we are talking about a million or more comets. Which seems like a lot until you realize that the in the kupier belt and oort cloud there are hundreds of millions of comets. At this point most of them are in stable orbits which is why we don't se all that many of them .

        October 5, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  51. Dave

    All this time I thought it was due to my leaky toilet. As supporting evidence I have my huge monthly water bill.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
  52. John Travolta

    Water and humans came from a space alien named Xenu who impregnated volcanoes with his man-goo and then blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Jeez, everyone knows that. Duh.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
    • Tom Cruise

      For shizzle, my nizzle

      October 5, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
      • q

        LMAO!!

        October 5, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
    • Kirstie Alley

      Shhhh! People aren't supposed to know that until they've paid hundreds of thousands of dollars first!

      October 5, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
      • Jed Clampett

        I paid already.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
  53. Lois

    Remember this day! One Day - EVERY KNEE shall bow and EVERY TONGUE shall confess to God. I feel sorry that you will be punished for your unbelief...May your eyes be opened before it is TOO LATE. Love, Lois

    October 5, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
    • klay

      keep the fear mongering going...its how you fill the collection plate...but instead of doing that here...i suggest you go to a preschool where their minds are more apt to believe your garbage.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
    • New World

      I feel sorry for your false belief (and intelligence) Lois. At least I won't threaten you into believing my beliefs.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
    • Greg

      LOIS, that's IDIOTIC! Do you and your brethren REALLY think that FEAR OF PUNISHMENT will motivate people to believe? If that's why you believe, I feel sorry for you. Do you honestly think that a religion that preaches love and forgiveness will doom non-believers to eternal torture?!? Take a step back and look at it with eyes that aren't tainted by propaganda and emotion- IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. You see that mess in the Middle East? Yup, caused by religion. 9/11? Religion. The Crusades? The KKK? The witch trials, the Holocaust, various mass-suicides.....CAUSED BY RELIGION......

      October 5, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
      • Greg

        sorry, didn't mean to yell.....

        October 5, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
    • Topdown

      That sounds a lot like servitude... even if I were a religious person, why would I willingly want to open my eyes to the idea that I will be a slave to anyone?

      Surely if "God" exists in some form, all powerful... it cant be to simply enslave the human population. What a waste of potential.

      Now, the Pope agreed that the big-bang was the beginning of the universe in 1951 and all of the asteroids, meteors and planets are therefore the work of God... so that means that those of us suffering from "unbelief" are actually actively doing MORE to prove the existence of God than you simpletons that live your life on "faith" alone.

      Get on the bus... live your life like a TRUE believer, place your FAITH in science as God intended.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
    • George

      To each his own! But the thing that always bothered me about God is, If you don't believe you get punished? It does't sit right with me. Sounds like a tyrant, not all loving.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
    • Katrina

      O hey!
      Science called, they would like to repossess your electricity, automobile/fuel, computer, telephone, medications, fertilized/pest-controlled food, plastics...etc.

      You're welcome to keep your hovel, candles, spade and plot of land, of course

      October 5, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  54. Ed

    "One theory is that it came from comets, and that hypothesis gets more support in..."

    It would be instructive to define the difference (nay, understand) between "theory" and "hypothesis" prior to writing about science.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
  55. BJ Bell

    Not a chance, if that many comets had hit Earth it would have been destroyed.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
    • I'm The Best!

      They didn't all have to hit the ground. Most probably burned up in the atmosphere and stayed there as water vapor until it cooled enough for the water to come down as rain.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • Science Teacher

      But the millions of asteroids and planetesimals that collided with Earth during its formation were no problem at all...

      October 5, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
  56. I'm The Best!

    Science: What? We were wrong? Don't worry, we'll think of something else that fits this new information and then test that. We'll get it right eventually.

    Religion: What? We were wrong? Someone kill that man before he tells everyone.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • JinxGT

      More like...

      Science: I have this really cool hypothesis, let's manipulate our data collection to support our claims and then request more grant money.

      The validity of the scientific community was lost when they abandoned academia and the scientific method...research mostly done now a days is a gag to get more funding.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
      • New World

        …unlike all the religious faiths who get tax free status for what?

        October 5, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
      • Steve T

        And how much time have you spent working in research to know this? I work in academia, and misconduct cases are very very rare. The vast majority of scientists produce high quality work. Do you have any idea what grant funding goes towards? Usually one-third goes to overhead at the institution, and most of the remainder goes to funding students and direct research expenses. Only a small amount, about 10-15% goes to the investigators salaries, which is set by the institution. A research grant is not a slush fund! Most scientists could make far more money for fewer hours in the private sector (I know I certainly would), but do their line of work because they enjoy it, not for money!

        October 5, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Ask yourself: what is Andrew Wakefield doing now? Let me refresh your memory... he's the clown that falsified his data and produced a scientific article claiming a causal link between the MMR vaccine and Autism... He has subsequently been discredited and will never work in a science lab again... his credibility is shot beyond repair, so much so that he could only get work at the Discovery Institute...

        October 5, 2011 at 7:14 pm |
  57. Luke

    A lovely science article. Somehow this is now a discussion about religious. I hate you all. Thanks.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
    • vicky

      you took the words out of my mouth. too funny...

      October 5, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
    • I'm The Best!

      I agree, but it's not going to help at all to say something. So I figured I would join in.

      It was a good article and very interesting, now I'm just killing some time until I get off work. Haha.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • Vader

      Luke... I am your father!

      October 5, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
  58. Ashwin

    Six comets besides Hartley 2 have also been analyzed in recent years, and their water didn't have hydrogen isotope compositions similar to earthly water either. But these comets came from much farther away than the Kuiper belt, in a region called the Oort cloud.

    -----

    Ok now you say :
    The comet is currently about 419 million miles from Earth. Scientists believe it originated in the Kuiper belt, which is near Pluto.
    ---------

    BELIEVE its from Kuiper belt?? Believe?? are you serious? Unless they have proof that this comet originated from the Kuiper belt they cannot make such far reaching conclusions, seriously what is up with scientists, if you wanna believe take a religion.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Please remember that this article was written by a staffer at CNN, not the actual scientists.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • I'm The Best!

      If they replaced believe with theorized, would it make you feel better?
      They aren't just making guesses, there is a reason they say that's where they think the comets came from.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
      • Kevin

        No, it's still a guess and not a verygood one considering we haven't examined the Kuiper Belt. This whole article is hardly a scientific piece. Kinda follows the Orson Wells storyline - make it sound good and people will believe it.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
    • Dave

      Um, that is how science works. They think about stuff, they form beliefs, they test their beliefs and see if tests confirm or contradict them, and eventually they hope to have repeatable tests, done by independent groups, confirming their beliefs. Any good scientist will also abandon a belief if contradictory evidence is found, or a better theory/belief is proposed. In some cases they can find only circumstantial evidence for a belief. It happens. Get over it. The alternative is to return to the middle ages.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
      • Katrina

        Pleeeease don't equate the word theory with belief. I don't know how many times I've had to explain to some idiot that the "theory" of evolution is not the same echelon of theory as, say, that theory you have about where the other sock goes after running it through the laundry.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  59. bailoutsos

    I thought God took a piss.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
    • q

      HAHAHA!!

      October 5, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
  60. Ken

    Yes & No.
    The majority of the Earth's water has arrived through the interaction of the Solar Wind and the Bio-Oxygenated Oxygen Ion molecules in the Earth's upper Ionosphere that most people know through the Aurora.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
    • Ken

      The majority of Comets are not made of water but have more in common with regular asteroids. OH- molecules detected are often times the result of oxygen ions mixing with the hydrogen ions of the solar wind and are mistaken as spectral evidence for water because the spectral signature of OH and H2O are very similar.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
    • Science Teacher

      This makes no sense. Photosynthesis didn't begin until around 3500 Ma. Oxygen from photosynthesis was busy combining with iron in the oceans to make banded-iron formations for the next billion years or so. The atmosphere didn't become oxygenated until 2300 Ma so oxgen from a biotic source wasn't around when the oceans formed. No ozone, no oxygen ions, no free oxygen period. Outgassing from volcanoes and some water from comets are the most likely source of our oceans.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
      • Ken

        Science Teacher, it makes perfect sense when you mix in reality and abandon theoretical 20th Century notions of Earth's planetary formation history. "Growing Earth" concepts which are proven by 21st Century Science require new models to explain Ocean genesis.

        October 5, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
  61. Roger Swanson

    Christians must understand God's system of accomplishing great things! Genesis of the Bible was based upon assumptions and beliefs during the time that information and knowledge were passes verbally; possibly before written language was there. God made the heaven and earth of course! But, it must be fair to him and understand that God's Hands includes the sciences and other very important processes. Some we are beginning to understand and some are to be learned but by bit as God makes it available to our learned peoples. QUESTION: IF GOD MADE THE EARTH, SUN AND JUPITER - HOW BIG IS GOD PHYSICALLY? WAS HE THE SAME SIZE AS JESUS OR MUCH-MUCH LARGER? THINK!

    October 5, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
    • m

      OHHH shut up.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
      • New World

        OMG It's Bill O'Reilly!!!! No argument = Oh Shut Up!

        October 5, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
    • JL

      What are you basing these claims upon if you say we cannot trust the word of God because it was written by "unlearned people?" Should we base it on scientists who believe in materialism and whose opinion is continually changing? Who says God the father is physical? If God is big enough to create the universe through an impossibly complex series of "natural processes," why can't He do it supernaturally as He told us He did in Genesis?

      October 5, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
      • @supernatural

        That is a TV show. That isnt reality. If God made the Universe...then what made you think He quit his Day job? He is still creating, protecting and destroying it... as we see from evidence of the universe around us. He made the Sun and the planets and the Earth in this solar system by the same method as the rest of the solar systems in the universe are made. Case closed.

        October 5, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
    • Maggie

      that is all fine to study and discover God's work. However, due credit needs to go to the designer.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
  62. Ralph

    In other news, science once again jumps back and forth between different theories and really has no clue. Atheists rejoice since your science is all knowing and there could never be such a thing as God.

    October 5, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
    • FBMarky

      I know there's no god because I prayed for him to strike you down and you're still here. So there!

      October 5, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
  63. flyskybird

    To my pot smoking friends.... Yeah right...

    October 5, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
  64. Johnny 5

    The cat is slowly being let out of the bag thanks to the worlds scientists. This is the reality and not the myth.

    October 5, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
  65. NextPrez

    As Oil is Abiotic and generated by Earth (not a product of fossil fuels). Water is also Abiotic and was generated by Earth ions ago, it doesn't come from planets.

    October 5, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
    • Chris

      "Generated by Earth(A Planet) eons ago, it doesn't come from planets."

      Hmmm......

      October 5, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Sorry, oil is not abiotic... it is the natural byproduct of decomposing organic material... it just takes millions of years to happen.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
      • New World

        I think the next Prez gets a FAIL.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
    • @NextPrez

      Oil is ABIOTIC? WTF!! Dude, what part of FOSSIL fuel did you not comprehend?? Its a fuel that came from one part of the fossilization process!
      If you believe that it came direct from God creating pools of oil under the ground...please just pray for gasoline instead of going to the pump. What ARE they teaching you in school these days??
      You and Michelle Bachmann- peas in a pod. Oh , I forgot.. she is also a 'drill baby, drill' person... which means she has to know that oil is trapped way under the surface of the earth. If she also thinks that God put it magically there... why dont you all pray that you would have a few surface lakes of ready made gasoline. Go on now...Pray for it!!!

      October 5, 2011 at 7:06 pm |
  66. Michael

    Scientists crack me up!!! What a bunch of self higness creeps. Anyone who beleives this nonsense is foolish. And I will sell you ocean front property in Arizona. Just like the dinosaurs are billions of years old. How about the book of genisis or Job. Look up the behemoth. God created all. Recent dinosaur bones have been found with soft tissue in them. What does that tell you? storys of dragons only a few hundreds of years ago tell you what? That they werent from billions of years ago..Oh, and carbon dating only goes back how long????? I will give 20,000 years tops for the age of this earth, and thats a strecth, Prolly more like 10,000. Stop trying to be GOD people and get into the scripture. Christ is coming soon, repent and change your ways.

    October 5, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
    • klay

      Michael, first people have been saying that the rapture was near for thousands of years...jesus even said (supposedly) that it SHOULD have happened a long time ago. Second, you do realize you are putting your faith in man (actually 30+ men) who wrote the book? You can believe anything you want, doesnt make it true, and its idiots like you who keep society from improving by trying to keep us in the stone ages. Read a book (other than the bible), open your eyes and think for yourself for a change instead of being led blindly by your fellow corrupt man.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
      • Michael

        I have seen miracles and myslef was healed in a blinking of an eye from a grapefruit sized tumor on my leg. So Ill keep beleiving my 30+ men. BTW, ever here of the dead sea scrolls? And also, all prohecies must be fullfilled before the rapture. They are about ALL fullfilled. The economy is just another one of them and the middle east. The rebuilding of the temple of israel 3 times. The blueprints are complete for the third rebuilding.. But thank you for your response and GOD BLESS YOU.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
      • klay

        so just because something happens to you that you cannot explain you automatically attribute it to being a miracle from God. LOL keep putting your faith in man. Yes I have heard of the dead sea scrolls....but your jesus said "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." Well many generations have come and gone.....did Jesus return? no. Plain truth is, people have been saying the rapture is coming since the bible has been written and clearly the rapture never came. Listen, you can believe anything you want, but dont cry when someone challenges your beliefs as "Mickey Mouse"

        October 5, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
      • klay

        and please, do not twist the words of the bible to fit your agenda....christians tend to do this to help validate their views. dont tell me you know what jesus meant when we still have trouble getting accurate translations into our language. The only way to really KNOW what jesus meant is to read the book in its original language.

        Oh and you do know the books in the bible were picked and chosen by men right? God didnt pick what stories to put in the bible. Man did, years after.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
      • Michael

        Clay, I have no agenda. Just stating my opinion as everyone else is doing. And Jesus was talking about his crucifixion. you must be one of those democrats that preach tolerance, right. Practice what you preach. I’m entitled to my beliefs and opinions.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
      • klay

        "you must be one of those democrats that preach tolerance, right."

        LOL actually I am not affiliated with any political party and base my political views on the issues, not based on party. But thanks for assuming that I must be a democrat. Next you will assume I am an Atheist....see what happens when you assume things? you look foolish.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
      • Michael

        Klay, God chose what books and what would be put into the bible. He used man to do it. In revelation Paul was instructed to leave out mystery on purpose. Try reading it, you may find it interesting. And nobody is crying Klay....... Again, Im entitled to my opinion. you are just angry with life in general. Quit attacking me for my beleifs. Loosen up a bit. Practice some tolerance. Seek out the lord, your creator.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
      • Michael

        LOL! Whom do I look foolish to? You? Im simply stating my opinion. But I will stop cause only Klay can state his opinion. My bad.... Big tuff Guy Klay.... I could care less about what a guy named Klay thinks.. Just find your attacks quite ammusing. You are soooooo mad cause I dont agree with you. LOL!!! Pretty comical. However, I will pray for you just the same.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
      • Timmy

        Michael: Actually John wrote the Revelation.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
      • klay

        "God chose what books and what would be put into the bible. He used man to do it."

        This is the big conundrum....AHHHHHH Man was influenced by god to write what is in the bible, ACCORDING TO MAN. You see the problem here? You're actually going to believe a man who says they were influenced by god? OK......but IMO man is so corrupt how can you believe man? Actually I have read the bible, I had to in theology 101 in college, so I know about the bible. And actually, I am currently rereading it on my ipad, usually on long business trips, and making notes along the way for my own sake. I am not attacking you for beliefs, you can believe anything you want, its what makes this country great. What I will attack is your reasoning behind those beliefs. when something looks like a rat, smells like a rat, it most likely is a rat. And just for your information, I am agnostic in my religious belief, meaning that I can accept the fact that I don't have all of the answers like you apparently do. There could be a god, or many gods or no god. The FACT is you or I will never be able to prove it one way or another at this time in this life. PROOF and BELIEF are two different things. now that ive wasted enough time, back to work... good day.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
      • klay

        "I will pray for you just the same."

        please dont. thanks.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Excuse me klay, I want to butt in here.

        I am an atheist. I do care what you believe and I will correct you when your beliefs interfere with the goings on of everyday life. ie, pro life, capital punishment, christian nation, etc. You want to stay ignorant in your bronze-aged superstions, fine... may I recomend http://religion.blogs.cnn.com. this may be a better outlet for you. This is science.

        And don't pray for me, you really aren't praying for me to be accepted into your heaven, you're really praying that I start to think like you do, and that just isn't going to happen. May god B-less.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
    • Chris

      Science(I dont know, but I will continue to try to find the best answer)
      Morons(God did it)

      October 5, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
    • Bobs your uncle

      what is a higness?

      When jesus comes I cant wait to have him tested in a lab. Then we will have some proof that he exists.

      Wheres the article of dinosaur soft tissue?

      And stories of dragons are just that. You find flying dino bones and make up a story to go with it!

      October 5, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
      • Michael

        http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=dinosaur+bones+soft+tissue+found&pbx=1&oq=dinosaur+bones+soft+tissue&aq=1v&aqi=g-v2&aql=&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=2999l4092l4l7326l6l6l0l0l0l3l437l1561l3-2.2l4l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=569ce67a91048ad5&biw=1600&bih=703

        October 5, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
      • Michael

        http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/03/06/scrambling-continues

        October 5, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
      • klay

        "The new study reveals that the cortical bone within T. rex femurs may, under certain conditions, retain cellular and subcellular details. Under normal conditions, fossilization replaces living material with minerals. In this case, the soft tissue was protected from degradation, possibly through some chemical process, then desiccated to prevent further changes. Upon treatment with water and dilute acid, the tissue was rehydrated, returning to an appearance similar to how it originally looked. Since no molecular studies have yet been done with the specimen, it is uncertain if the specimen contains original organic material or if the material was replaced by some mineralization or other chemical process."

        http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dinoblood.html

        October 5, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
      • Michael

        Have a look at this people.... Im open to new disovery, and possibly the truth. Unlike our Dear friend Klay....... God Bless Klay.

        http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/03/06/scrambling-continues

        October 5, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
      • J.

        @Michael.. From the woman who found the tissue..
        To Schweitzer, trying to prove your religious beliefs through empirical evidence is absurd, if not sacrilegious. "If God is who He says He is, He doesn't need us to twist and contort scientific data," she says. "The thing that's most important to God is our faith. Therefore, He's not going to allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies."

        October 5, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
    • julie

      This is the funniest thing I have read all day. When you are sick do you go to the doctor or simply pray?

      October 5, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
      • Michael

        Glad to have humored you. I do not go to the doctor simply for being sick. However, I was scheduled for surgey the morning my tumor was healed. The funniest part of all of it was the reaction on the doctors face that had been seeing me for a few months prior to that day, His only explination was, nothing short of a miracle. I will pray to God for you julie that you may never end up with cancer. GOD BLESS YOU.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
    • JoJo

      Wow, talk about a 'self higness creep'. I see you ate your bowl of looney tunes today.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
    • David in Seattle

      You crack me up. You don't know what science is. Science never purports to give you the truth. It only provides an explanation for the empirical data that you see around and allows you to make predicitions. It matters none whether the earth was really created 4000 years ago or even yesterday. Since scientific theories are only inductive and based on empirical, no scientific theory can ever be proven - only disproven. Tell that to you buddy, Rick Perry.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
      • Michael

        Niot a fan of Rick Perry at all. He has the look of a liar in his eyes. Just like the current guy.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
      • David in Seattle

        And how about George Bush. He told some real whoppers.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
    • PaulBoomer

      Are you for real? You're being sarcastic, right?

      October 5, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
    • eldono

      Christ has already returned and is walking the streets of Waukegan, Illinois.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
    • everettreb

      I agree, however some people here do not believe in God.
      But even if you take God out of the equation this story about the earth being thousands of degrees and no water and water came from comets is idiotic.

      How dare anyone that's believe this story call be crazy for believing that God crated it all.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        The difference is that there is evidence of comets and other celestial bodies... there is no credible evidence for your version of God...

        Which of the two is more plausible?

        October 5, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • Ray

      Hope you don't have children because if that is what they would learn from you they have chosen the wrong parent(s). None of what you have written is proven fact, just conjecture. You are willing to believe anything just so long as someone says its in the bible, or God said. Depressing and demoralizing to say the least. School was not on your agenda any was it?

      October 5, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
    • Ken

      Wow, thanks Jesus Freak.

      That's a good redneck, just discredit scientists and people who actually made it to COLLEGE, people who actually understand the world is built on FACTS, not some ridiculous faith in a man-made religion.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  67. goe

    Can we stop looking for whatz not lost? God brought the water. Simple!!!

    October 5, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
    • klay

      ahhhhh simple answers to lifes most complicated questions....must be easy to be so ignant.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Who brought God? Not so simple now, is it?

      October 5, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
      • Michael

        It is quite simple. GOD IS, ALWAYS WAS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE.

        October 5, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
      • klay

        Michael, PROVE IT using sources other than the bible.

        October 5, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
      • eldono

        God always has been? What do you mean "always"?

        October 5, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
      • ajk68

        The fact that "God Is" was deduced by the Greek philosophers. It was a purely rational deduction not based on the Bible.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Micheal,

        My eyesight is quite good, thank you. Writing things in CAPS LOCK doesn't make it any more true. Your version of God is as real as Horus and Dionysus... in fact... if they weren't 1000 years older, I'd think they were Jesus. LOL.

        See I can prove the Universe exists... we see IT everywhere. We ACTUALLY see it. Now if I were to say it was always here, at least there would be evidence that it's here in the first place. God, on the other hand, what does he have? A Book, written by men, guided by God, who was invented by men. (we call these delusions).

        Please answer me this, Is everything written in the Bible true? If so, please tell me the colour of the robe that was placed on Jesus by the Romans prior to his cruxifiction and provide the reference. Thanks. Simple task, really.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
      • amanda

        as god always was and always will be, what was he doing before he created earth? what's he gonna do after the rapture? seems like god had and has got a lot of time on his hands and might have done things a little better than creating parasitic worms that must live by blinding poverty stricken african children or making benign kidney stones so excruciatingly painful.

        October 6, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
    • julie

      Simple answers for simple people.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
    • lulz

      hahaha, he said god!

      October 5, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
  68. David

    May have come from comets??? May?? But in the first Chapter of Genesis God created the earth and divided the land from the waters see verse 6 and 7 Genesis 1. I would rather believe God's word than another one of Science's thousand upon thousands of empty theories. The earth could not have just happened the way Evolutionist theory describes. Something from nothing does not make sense. Would the fact that we are the exact distance away from the Sun have anything to do with our survival as humans?? Venus too hot, Mars too cold. Earth just right. Wow. now that took alot of thought. You know it takes more faith to be an atheist that it does to believe in God. There are signs of His creation all around us.

    October 5, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
    • hawaiiduude

      God could have also said "BANG!" and it all unfolded.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
    • Rationale Thought

      Shut up.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      but God making everything out of nothing makes perfect sense to you? LOL

      October 5, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
    • Bobs your uncle

      You say Something from nothing could not exist, and yet you believe in a god who just was one day and created everything? pffft.

      I knew some crazy christian would appear for these articles..

      October 5, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
    • klay

      so david, what you are saying is that you believe there is no other planet in the solar system that is habitable. God is so almighty but made only one planet habitable.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
    • TellTale

      Exactly! Science thories are so wrong! There is no way something can be created out of nothing. So surely God created all. But just curious, where did God get the material to create them? Home Depot? There is no way something can be created out of nothing!

      October 5, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
    • JB

      So, Im confused. God still created something out of nothing right? So, it apparently is possible. Just try to have an open mind. Considering there were dozens of planets in the early solar system, it's not hard to believe that one of them would settle in a friendly zone.

      Did you know the leading Vatican scientists say that it is not possible that modern humans came from 2 common ancestors. Maybe you should realize that a MAN wrote the Bible, and it probably should never be taken literally.

      Have a Great Day!

      October 5, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
      • dsang

        No...not from 2...from 8...Noah, Ham, Shem, Japeth and their wives....the only ones that survived the flood.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ dsang,

        So all that incest created all the different races? LOL. And the polar bears and penguins... walked to the middle east voluntarily... LMAO.

        October 5, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
    • JRev

      Yeah, it make so much more sense that some dude was resurrected for our sins huh? And then, 200 or whatever years later people wrote it down and another 1800 years later people still believe those stories? Religion as an explanation of our planet's origin is the most fantastical explanation there is. What if we had waited until NOW to write down the history of the Civil War, solely based upon stories told to us by friends/family? I guess we should just have "faith" that our sources were inpsired by God and were infallible in their memories...? I think God may exist, but I also think that if he does, he has a great sense of humor and finds people like you hilarious. There are so many holes in all religions it is absurd. So, your God is so loving that he thought slavery was ok huh? That's not a God I would worship, but hey, go for it man.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
    • JoJo

      Not so hard to believe really. I have an open mind to the fact God farted and you specifically were created.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
  69. Banner

    Where did all the water on the comets come from?

    October 5, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
  70. Jack Be Humble

    Terraforming the moon will be easier if it has lots and LOTS of water already on it.

    October 5, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
  71. Allen

    There is a facinating article on this topic written by a Creationist, Dr Jerry Bergman, who has 9 degrees & 2 doctorates, at the following site:

    http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_2/j10_2_202-210.pdf

    October 5, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
    • JoJo

      http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archives/410/how-the-fallen-have-fallen-jerry-bergman-stoops-to-kevin-wirth

      October 5, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
    • @Allen

      People can make up their own degrees and doctorates... They just wont be accepted by his PEERS. Do you understand the difference??
      I have 2 doctorates as well- one in medicine, and one in genetics. So, I am an MD/PhD. I also have the lesser degrees of Bachelors in Biology and Chemistry. So what? My doctorates are in science fields- peer reviewed and peer accredited. Your Bergman chap has self awarded degrees...and that means bubkis!

      October 5, 2011 at 7:38 pm |
  72. petemg

    Yeah so people do not believe in a Creator but they believe in a comet. Dah so where did the comet come from when there was nothing in the beginning. Does it matter where the water comes from when we can not use water appropriately.

    October 5, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
    • Bob

      Who created the creator?

      October 5, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
    • klay

      comets and asteroids come from planetary debris left over from the creation of our solar system. Where this matter came from before, I dont know. The fact that you claim you know where this matter comes from is laughable, actually more crazy than anything.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
    • Tom

      Everyone knows it was the big bang. When all that nothing got real small and blew up into everything. Writing this even made me laugh. Big bang, what else will they come up with? Where did the nothing come from, what compressed it and what created the space for it to blow up in? And a creator is hard to believe?? I think some people did evolve from apes, or got part way anyway.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
  73. kso

    anyone who's been paying attention to The Universe knows this.

    October 5, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
  74. kso

    anyone who's been paying attention to The Universe know this.

    October 5, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
  75. Kostas Sideras

    Pleanty of time for a reoccuring process to take place between 3.8 and 4.1 billion years ago (that's 300,000,000 years). Plus our immidiate environment was full of large terestrial bodies at that time. Any one of them would make todays comets ashamed to be called comets.

    October 5, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
    • Jeff

      3.8 billion years is 3,800,000,000 - not 300,000,000.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
      • TampaDude

        300,000,000 is the difference between 3.8 billion and 4.1 billion, dude.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
  76. I Got it

    Giant aliens visited billions of years ago and the earth was their campfire and like any drunk camper would they dumped their urine all over the planet and laughed while it smoked from it and it is now oceans as we know it today!

    October 5, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
    • Uhhhhhh

      Brilliant!

      October 5, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
  77. Richard from Arkansas

    I don't know, but obviously some of our people came from Uranus

    October 5, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
    • Stuart

      Gets my vote for best and funniest post in this thread!!!

      October 5, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
    • hawaiiduude

      They fly around Uranus and wipe out Klingons.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
  78. Terry Brookman

    The latest news is that in the formation of planetary body's might only be passable when water is present. This would lead us to the conclusion that the formation of earth might only be passable if water was already present. The water added by cometary impact was just a extra.

    October 5, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
    • Uhhhhhh

      Passable? Are you from Boston and you mean possible? Or are you spell check challenged and you mean plausible? I am confused.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
  79. oh please

    ITS BS,
    If that much bombardment had occurred, it would be cyclical, not all at once, and if its cyclical, then it is a REOCCURRING process, and since we all know that we are NOT being slammed by comets on THAT scale....its BS. THAT MUCH water does not come from a massive bombardment, it comes from REOCCURRING , MASSIVE "reoccurring bombardments", and again, since we all know this is not a reoccurring event, it did not happen, could not happen, will not happen..

    October 5, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
    • mike

      @ohplease ... the word is recurring, not reOccuring.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • Wicket

      No, it doesn't *have* to be cyclical. There are events that occurred during the formation of the solar system that do not necessarily have to reoccur. Let's say, for fun, that it *was* cyclical. Those cycles could be millions of years long, and we haven't been around long enough to personally witness any large bombardment. Have you noticed the cratering on the moon? It's the same with the earth, just harder to see with the vegetation and erosion over millions of years.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
    • IEK

      Why *must* it be cyclical? You're making no sense.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
    • Dan

      I don't mean to be rude, but I think you misunderstand. It was recurring for many years. But it basically stopped when Neptune's orbit got pushed out and the gravitational forces that maintained those comments changed. Those comets would have changed path. It took many years, but eventually the comets either hit things or were ejected from the solar system. So... not BS. Not sure why you would be so emphatic but I thought I would help point out that some of what you say is right, but you appear to be missing some of the data.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
    • kso

      planetary accretion.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
    • Mike

      There are geologic processes tha recur- "the past is the key to the present", but other events that were one-offs or short lived. The early solar system was a very violent place. It has now settled into quasi-equilibrium, thankfully for us . . .

      October 5, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
    • Uhhhhhh

      Pictures or it didn't happen....

      October 5, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      And your alternative theory is...

      October 5, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
    • daimon

      comments such as your show how feeble your mind is.....they estimated the process was between 300 million years of a bombardment process....obviously this may be to difficult for you to grasp, its not something that happens in your lifetime and definitely not in 6000 years....go to school, read a book– you might learn something or two

      October 5, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
    • JoJo

      so dumb I chuckled

      October 5, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
    • SFC Mike

      logical thinking not your forte?

      Collision events would only be cyclical *if* (and this is not the only condition) the solar system was more or less static. The mass distribution in the early solar system was subsantially different. There wasn't a neat collection of "balls" orbiting in more or less the same plane. Prior to formation of the sun, you had a fairly uniform dust cloud that was more or less continuous, but with density gradients toward the center, which caused the initial gradual concentration toward the center. As central mass increased, particles transferred their angular momentum and you had the beginnings of the present orbit of solar system mass.

      When the earth started forming, the four gas giant planets were not at their present mature size (or orbital location, and the sun itself was not at its present size. There were more collisions simply because there were more small bodies to collide with. Most of the denser material (ferronickel elements) was out of the mix and into planetary cores or the sun relatively early on, so when you arrived at the beginning of the LHB (Late Heavy Bombardment), you had about 500 million years of solar system formation to remove most of these heavy materials, and the majority of what was left to collide with were lighter materials typical of modern asteroids and comets.

      The reason you don't have ongoing cyclical collisions is simple – it's not a whole lot different than driving down the road and bugs hitting your windshield, except you have a finite supply of bugs (comets and asteroids don't reproduce) and you have hundreds of millions of years of driving. Eventually, with no new bugs and enough driving back and forth, there won't be many bugs left to hit.

      In the modern solar system, any object(s) that would potentially collide with the earth are more or less in the same orbital plane as the planets, so to get to earth they have to either clear four gas giant planets and their gravitational interactions, or the sun and its gravitational interaction. We don't have cyclical collisions for the simple reasons that most of the potential colliding material has already hit something or been gravitationally ejected from the solar system, and because the earth is well shielded from collisions by the fact its orbit lies between the sun and four gas giant planets all orbiting in the same plane.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
  80. greg o.

    if every scar on the moons surface was caused by a comet, (which no one would claim is the case) would they be enough to account for the number it would have taken to fill the earths oceans.

    is the composition of our water a mixture of the different compositions of each comet that has hit the earths surface in the last billions of years? Would that mean the earths ocean composition changes with each new comet that has hit it? Would that set the earths evolutionary process back with each new comet slamming into it?

    October 5, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • greg o. is a clueless troll who keeps posting nonsense here

      God, please save us from the ignorance of some of your followers.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
      • js51

        Amen!

        October 5, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
      • greg o.

        trolling for what? just honest questions.
        why such vitriol?

        October 5, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
    • Andrew

      The article states or implies that the isotopic composition of water (D/H ratio) is different in the Oort cloud vs the Kuiper belt. This may be because they originated in different parts of the Solar System with different temperatures which drove different fractionation. Be that as it may, the water of Earth (and presumably other inner Solar System bodies such as Europe, Mars, etc) would have the same isotopic composition as the comets that bombarded the inner SS during the period in question when the major planets were being realigned in their orbits, causing chaos in the inner SS. However, as water molecules break apart in the upper atmosphere from solar radiation, the lighter H molecules will tend to drift into space at a higher rate than the D molecules. Over very long time frames, that would cause the D/H ratio to increase very slightly. However, I'm sure the scientists took this calculation into account when they did their analysis. Altogether it is a very interesting article, showing where the water came from.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
      • ol' dirty hippie

        WTF?!? I guess I missed something rather important in geography class....Europe is a planet now???

        October 5, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
      • Chris R

        He meant to say Europa. It's a moon. Dig?

        October 5, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
    • Chris R

      :Let's say a comet has 1 billion gallons of water in the form of ice. When it smacks in to the Earth the effect it has on the composition of all the water on earth depends on how much water is already here. So if there were only 10 billion gallons of water on earth a billion gallon comet would have a huge effect. After it all mingled up you'd now have 11 billion gallons of water. As more and more of these comets started smacking into the Earth the effect of each one would diminish as the total volume of water increased. Currently there are 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water on earth. (326 Million Trillion gallons). So lets say we had a comet 300 miles across and its made entirely of ice. That would be 70,685 cubic miles of water (pi*r^2). Each mile of water is around 1 trillion gallons. So even a comet this size would only be .02% of the water on earth now. It would have an effect but a relatively dilute one.

      Also, does this mean that the earth was bombarded by millions of comets? Yes, that seems likely. It seemed to happen during a time called the Late Heavy Bombardment Period. It seems that there was a significant upheaval in the solar system and hundreds of millions of meteors and comets were sent flying all over the inner solar system.

      October 5, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
  81. eugenia

    You guys need to have faith in God...Put your faith in Jesus if you want to be saved. Not a joke.

    October 5, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
    • Jon

      Yes, it's a joke. This article had nothing to do with God or Jesus.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
    • SassyCakes

      So secure in your beliefs that you have to remind people that your not joking?

      October 5, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
    • reality check

      You need to open a book that was written by someone other than cavemen

      October 5, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
      • Stuart

        While that is one very funny remark that made me LOL, the Bible was obviously written by men who were far removed from cave dwellers. This is supposed to be a scientific topic after all.

        October 5, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
    • fu

      Yeah, it kind of is. This is the science column, where can always count on some digression into religion. Go figure.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
    • Lois R. Griswold

      In the Beginning, GOD... My faith and trust is in Him...without God, we would not exist. He is the Source of all that we are and have... Love, Lois

      October 5, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
      • Dave

        God is a kid with an ant farm, lady. He doesn't have a plan...you idiot!

        October 5, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Yes, Praise be Ptah most high, creator of all things...

        October 5, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
      • Bobs your uncle

        prove it.

        October 5, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
      • Chris R

        Lois, having faith is a wonderful thing. It really is. However, don't you think God gave us these great big brains for a reason? Don't you think God gave us curiosity, rationality, logic, and all of those other wonderful intellectual side effects of having a big brain for a reason? If God *simply* wanted blind obedience God could have simply created automatons that would do nothing but sing God's praises all day (like the cherubim and thrones). Instead God gave us free will. God, it seems to me, wants us to be smart and explore and find out new things. The neat thing is that as we use these gifts we find out things like this – wonderful things like the water on earth came from comets. The water from comets cam from gas clouds. The gas clouds came from stars. The stars game from vast clouds of hydrogen that came from other stars all the way back to the big bang. This is awesome is really shows the majestic subtlety of how God works. In the early days of science many people felt it was a tool to understand the will of God. There is *nothing* wrong with that view at all. God and science do not have to be at odds. Only simple minded literalists believe that. You aren't simple minded are you?

        October 6, 2011 at 10:41 am |
    • Jobi

      Thank You Eugenia. It States in the Bible, In the 1st Chapter of Genesis, Exactly How the Earth and it's Waters were Formed. End of Story !!!

      October 5, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
      • Dave

        It states in the bible...a book written by men that had no clue what in hell they were talking about. Listen, you friggin' religious nut blow jobs have your own places to go, this space is for science...for people who have brains. So go away.

        October 5, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
      • the real john

        nice mouth dave

        October 5, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
    • Spurt

      Yeah, God sent those comets!

      October 5, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
      • ol' dirty hippie

        Did not. It was the flying spaghetti monster.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
    • Hawk

      This is a science discussion. Not a discussion about "sky fairies". Leave your "imaginary friends" at the door, please.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
      • the real john

        and by you using the term "sky fairies" you have ALSO brought your religion into this. You should have just said "leave religion out". so you in turn have become "one of them" and are just as guilty. hypocrite.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
    • CS

      I lived in Japan and put my faith in Shinto. I moved to the Amazon rain forest and put my faith in spirits. I moved to India and put my faith in Hinduism. I moved to the middle east and put my faith in Allah. I moved to the U.S. and put my faith in Jesus. I found a shiny rock and put it in my pocket, then found $100 bill a day later. Now I put my faith in a shiny rock. Out of all of these...the shiny rock makes the most sense.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
      • the real john

        why, because you made money off it?

        October 5, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
      • Dave

        Great :^) It is a useful belief – you can use that shiny rock as a weapon. None of the other beliefs offer that.

        October 5, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
    • Odin

      Put your faith in Odin before it is too late! It has been proven many times in Norse scripture that he is far more effective than Jesus!

      http://data.whicdn.com/images/10531280/memes-odin-kills-ice-giants_large.jpg?1307390811

      October 5, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
    • the real john

      why are you bringing religion into this. this article has nothing to do with religion. you are as bad as the "scientists" on here who randomly start mocking God for no reason.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
  82. Dave Tessler

    Besides everyone knows that the water on Earth really came from Hydrus (or Okeanus). Geeeez

    October 5, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
  83. AL in West Palm Beach

    Regligulous:

    It was Adam who went to get it. Trust me , he walked bare feet, uphill both ways.

    October 5, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
    • Uhhhhhh

      Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!! Awesome

      October 5, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
  84. TheSource

    Here is the source article: http://www.herschel.caltech.edu/index.php?SiteSection=News&NewsItem=nhsc2011-017

    They have since corrected this site to billion (rather than million).

    October 5, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
  85. Physicslite

    Did Earth's water come from comets; Very possable.

    October 5, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
  86. Disappointed

    And on top of all the other scientific misstatements in the article, it's nonsense to say that "71% of our planet is ocean."

    71% is a reasonable estimate of the percentage of the *surface* of the planet that is covered with water.

    October 5, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
    • SnafuBob

      Actually you are wrong, the Earth is indeed roughly 70% water. Aside from simply looking at a globe, map, google Earth, or google maps to see that clearly there is plenty of data and sites on the internet to back that up.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
      • SnafuBob

        Besides what I mentioned; I also learned that fact in grade school.

        October 5, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
      • js51

        The diameter of the earth is about 8,000 miles. If water is 70% of the earth wouldn't the oceans need to be about 1,000 miles deep?

        October 5, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
      • Oakspar

        You are an idiot. Water only exist on the crust – which is a small percentage of the Earth by mass. Most of the Earth is a giant wad of molten rock.

        What you said is as foolish as saying that most of a Mounds bar is chocolate.

        October 5, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
      • SnafuForBob

        Actually, Bob, the SURFACE of Earth is roughly 70% water like stated above. idiot

        October 5, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
    • irishyank2

      It can be assumed that they are referring to the surface, not the entire planet mass. IT's called context, and your attempt to criticize/deconstruct this theory is just plain stupid and tastes heavily of 'Idiocracy'

      October 7, 2011 at 1:48 pm |
  87. Dave Tessler

    Serious typo here and lack of editing: "...Late Heavy Bombardment, about 3.8 to 4.1 million years ago..." This should be "BILLION" years ago.

    October 5, 2011 at 3:02 pm |
    • elandau

      This has been fixed, thank you.

      Elizabeth Landau, CNN

      October 5, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
  88. Howard

    So, why did Earth get all the water? Why doesn't Mars have oceans? Logic suggests it should've been struck by just as many comets, if not more, than Earth because those comets would've had to cross Mars' orbit before getting to Earth.

    October 5, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
    • ialsoagree

      Mars does have water. It's poles are covered in glaciers. In addition, Mar's core is not as hot as Earth's and so produces a much smaller magnetic field. It's magnetic field is not able to repel charged particles in space. These particles create what is known as a "solar wind" that strips away atmosphere from planets (this phenomenon is known to happen on Earth all the time). This likely results in much of the water deposited on Mars being stripped away when exposed to temperatures/sunlight that cause it to evaporate.

      You also have to realize that Mar's lacks the gravitational pull that Earth does. Not substantially, but when gravity makes up the MAJORITY of the chance of an object hitting another in space (after all, the volume of the Earth is miniscule compared to the volume of space around the Earth). Mars being smaller, and lacking the gravity of Earth, has a smaller chance of pulling in comets.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
      • Uhhhhhh

        By God Spock, there is intelligent life on this planet! Well said!

        October 5, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        becoming a fan... ;-)

        October 5, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
    • Josh

      When Mars' core cooled off, and solidified, it lost its protective magnetic shield. Once that happen, all the atmosphere and water started to slowly get blown into space by the solar wind.

      Someday when Earth's care cools off and solidifies, we'll face the same problem. Our atmosphere and water will slowly get blown into space too. Hopefully, by then, we will have found a new place to live.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
      • John 2

        Ya maybe with the spacestation – Just need to build a greenhouse and your good to go

        October 7, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
  89. greg o.

    how many comets does it take to fill an ocean?
    seems there would lots of water evident on the other planets too.

    October 5, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
    • James Kelley

      there is look at some of teh moons of jupiter, our own moon, even mars was found to have ice now...you wont see liquid water due to temperature.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
    • irishyank2

      There actually is a lot of H2O on other planets in our solar system, only difference is that most of it isn't in the form you recognize, plus their atmospheres (or lack thereof) couldn't or wouldn't contain such moisture over time. It's a legitimate theory that stands up extremely well to your convenience store analysis.

      October 7, 2011 at 1:50 pm |
  90. Dude

    There is no god.. At least that's what they told me while I was waiting in line to get into hell.. Then the bouncer goes "what you again? I told you. You're just to bad and you can't come in here"..

    October 5, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
  91. Jeff

    That would have to be a LOT of comets. How many Ice cubes does it take to fill a swimming pool? I dont think this theory "holds water" hahahahaha oooh I kill me.

    October 5, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
    • Josh

      That is the point that always has bothered me with this theory. If this theory is true, a LOT of "stuff" would have been falling onto Earth, and only a very small percentage of all that, would have any measurable amount of water that would make it to the surface.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
  92. ou812ic

    Wait i thought all the water came from heaven every time god flushed his toliet
    Just like Thunder is when god is bowling and lightning was when he got a strike

    October 5, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
    • John

      You heard that bowling thing when you were a kid too! I wonder now why it was necessary to say that, the truth is much cooler.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
      • hiboy00

        Because our dumb ass parents didn't know what thunder was

        October 5, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
      • the real john

        wow, so you are upset because your parents didnt give you the facts about thunder? that's kind off odd no? "dad, im scared of the thunder!".. "Dont worry little johnny, fear is a defense mechanism triggered by chemical reactions in your brain. Its not really scary, its heat expansion caused by atmospheric disturbances and a thing called lightning. The sound is just airwaves rapidly moving and striking your eardrums, causing a frightening sensation, but its okay. Now lay back and let gravity ease you into your 30/70 blend cotton bedding and your nocturnal cycle will eventually cause rapid eye movements. good night offspring!"

        October 5, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
  93. Yes1fan

    Doesn't this scenario GREATLY reduce the odds of Earth's life happening by "chance"?

    October 5, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
    • McBain05

      Not at all.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
    • Bob

      Absolutely does, if you're inclined to believe in such things. Please remember that the Oort cloud is only a theory and has never been observed.

      From Wikipedia: "Although no confirmed direct observations of the Oort cloud have been made, astronomers believe that it is the source of all long-period and Halley-type comets entering the inner Solar System"

      So now the latest fairy tale is that the water comes from an imaginary Oort cloud – duh – the Oort cloud is this big rain cloud in the sky. I don't have enough faith to buy into this. I would be more inclined to believe that aliens sent the frozen slushies here so when they left their own planet (which they ruined through global warming) they could enjoy a nice refreshing drink.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
      • Odin

        By your logic Gravity is only a theory and has never been observed. Wikipedia or not, the Oort cloud is too thin to be observed because it consists of a few hundred thousand small icy bodies spread of thousands of cubic lightyears of space. However, we do frequently observe bodies that originate in that area such as Halley's comet when they get knocked out of the cloud and plunge towards the sun.

        October 5, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
      • irishyank2

        Great argument about the existence of the Oort cloud. Now apply that to religion. All based on theory until proven. We've been waiting 2000 years for Christianity to create such evidence.

        October 7, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
  94. Oxygen

    Deuterium is sometimes called "heavy water"? And I thought some oxygen was needed as well.

    This article would have been a good place to bring up the panspermia hypothesis.

    October 5, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
  95. greg o.

    How is it that the earth is the only planet in our solar system to be bombarded by comets?
    Why would all those comets single out earth only?

    October 5, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
    • James Kelley

      it wasnt...look at the surface of teh moon and you will see...

      October 5, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
    • Dan

      What makes you say that? Mars has many impact craters.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:02 pm |
    • John

      They didn't... Mars, the Moon, venus, etc. all have water just not in the form that we have it here. Are you suggesting intelligent design? See the Belief page please.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
      • the real john

        you do realize you need to have faith to believe in most of what science proposes when it comes to how life began right?

        October 5, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • Galleleo

      What makes you think that Earth is the only with water? The moon and Mars are both now believed to contain water. Many others could too, but their atmosphere is too hostile for us to get close enough to find out. I'll bet they all have water in one form or another.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
    • cdimarco

      All these theories of extraterrestrial sources are just cop-outs.....

      Life on this earth must have originated from some other planet which blew apart, carrying cells across the universe and landing on earth. Water must have originated from a comet somewhere else and landed on earth.....Common science! This just takes away all responsibility of trying to solve the problem and pawns it on some unobservable extraterrestrial source.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
      • Jeff

        And where do you suppose the life on those planets that "exploded" originated?

        October 5, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
    • Stuart

      Are you serious? Have you never seen images of other planets and moons that are full of impact craters? Were you alive in 1994 when everyone watched comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact Jupiter? Sheesh. I could give a hundred other examples but educating the purposely uninformed isn't a good use of my time.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
    • George

      Other planets have been bombarded by comets, and still are. Also, it explained how other planets have blocked, absorbed essentially, some of the comets and asteroids, often the large gas planets, so any water on it wouldn't form oceans. Other planets would them be too hot or too cold to form oceans with the water. Learn some science.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • JW

      Ancient aliens terraforming the planet, I don't know?

      October 5, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
      • the real john

        just as strong a theory with as much proof as any other.. why not

        October 5, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
  96. John

    OK, but is it from a spring or just purified by afilter.

    October 5, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
  97. wait a moment

    wasn't the earth supposed to be covered by water before the dinosaurs? (as stated in the bible and various -ology books) how could these numbers possibly work? billions, maybe, but definitely not millions.

    October 5, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
    • adam

      Never reference the Bible if you want to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion.

      October 5, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
      • Galleleo

        Also never challenge a Sicilian when death is on the line.

        October 5, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
      • wait a moment

        never take things too seriously on a cnn comments thread.

        haha but your point stands. just taking a lighthearted jab at those who stand on opposite sides of the fence and work themselves into a religious frenzy. (and by religious I mean both the spiritual and scientific kind.)

        October 5, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
      • James Kelley

        or get involved in a land war in Asia...

        October 5, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
      • Uhhhhhh

        Or fry bacon in the nude

        October 5, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
    • TheThinker

      The Bible is the Word of God, and instructs us as to the nature of God, each other, and morality. It is also a historic record of the Hebrews from the migration from Iraq through the Roman occupation of Judea. It is NOT, however, a scientific document and should never be considered as such.

      October 5, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
      • Rick Perry

        How dare you!

        October 5, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
  98. James Kelley

    Believe that should be "billion" years ago not million. or we probs wouldnt be here...haha

    October 5, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
    • James Kelley

      also, even if the water did evaporate it would still be in water vapor form in the atmosphere...it is not like it just disappears or drifts off into space... most likley water came from volcanic eruptions from within the earth as well as comets...about 3.8-4 BILLION years ago.

      October 5, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
      • Dan

        Yeah, I'm with you. If water can exist on asteroids and comets, it surely was present on earth too. Just because the earth's surface may have been very hot doesn't mean the atmosphere or other parts of the crust didn't maintain H2O. I am sure these scientists are smarter than me about this, but maybe they should better explain why they think Earth's water disappeared in the first place.

        October 5, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
      • Gianni K

        EXACTLY! It would still be around even if evaporated.
        Who wrote this article?

        October 5, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
    • Chris Burke

      Yeah.. seems like they meant billion for sure.

      October 5, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
      • elandau

        Yes, I just changed to "billion." That was a typo. Thanks for reading!

        Elizabeth Landau, CNN

        October 5, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
  99. Einstein

    3.8 to 4.1 million years ago? I think you're off by about 3.8 to 4.1 billion years.

    October 5, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
    • James Kelley

      beat me to it by 2 mins gratz...

      October 5, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
  100. Religulous

    Wait, wait, I thought God brought the water, 6000 years ago when people rode dinosaurs!

    October 5, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
    • BobFromPA

      Good one, made me chuckle.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
    • the real john

      thats your contribution? really?

      October 5, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
    • John 2

      I'm sure you all will figure it out in the couple of years you have left on this earth

      October 7, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
1 2

Contributors

  • Elizabeth LandauElizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia DengoSophia Dengo
    Senior Designer