Slashdot Mirror
Early Earth Atmosphere Favourable to Life
mathinator writes "A study by researchers at the University of Waterloo indicates that Earth in its infancy probably had substantial quantities of hydrogen in its atmosphere, a surprising finding that may alter the way many scientists think about how life began on the planet. The new study indicates that up to 40 percent of the early atmosphere was hydrogen, implying a more favourable climate for the production of pre-biotic organic compounds like amino acids, and ultimately, life. The paper was authored by doctoral student Feng Tian, Prof. Owen Toon and Research Associate Alexander Pavlov of CU-Boulder's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and by Prof. Hans De Sterk of University of Waterloo's Applied Mathematics department. The paper was published in the April 7 issue of Science Express, the online edition of Science Magazine"
Only if argued at the same critical and scientific level, and not argued on the "It's written here, so it's true" logic.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered
-----------------------
as is the theory of creation, both should be equally taken in with an open mind, and studied carefully.
-----------------------
Gravity is actually just a theory too, the whole law thing is just a name. So should consider non-gravity as a equal theory? How about the theory the earth is round, it's onyl a theory after all. Perfectly valid explanations of how it's "flat but all the evidence to the contrary is faked" also exist, should we consider both of the equally?
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Can anyone tell me how many times these high and mighty evolution scientists have already backpedalled and changed their version of the truth to fit some new finding? I've already lost the count... pathetic, really.
Gosh.... yeah, it's awful how scientists are always changing their mind on encountering new data.
If we had any guts, we'd still believe in ether.
I don't think the parent is really a creationist at all; it's an anonymous coward trolling by pretending to be a creationist, providing a particularly easy straw man argument for us to knock down.
Which is utterly mysterious because there are plenty of authentic nutcases on slashdot.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
When do we get to put a sticker on the bible?
Since 99%+ of known free matter in the universe is hydrogen, and the solar system formed out of... mostly hydrogen... is this really a surprise? I'd actually be shocked to find out that there WASN'T that much hydrogen in the atmosphere when things kicked off. This is like putting out a newsflash "We found something in the middle of the ocean - AND IT WAS WET!!!"
I find it much more reasonable to believe it was created with a snap of the fingers and admit I cannot understand how God could always exist than to believe this Awesome Universe "evolved" exactly the way it did!
I find it much more reasonable to believe that this awesome universe evolved exactly the way it did than that some mythical guy called God snapped his fingers and it all, like, happened dude! Funny how we both believe different, contradictary, things. It's almost as if beliefs mean crap all... I guess we have to fall back on that tried and true method of applying logic and evidence to the situation. What evidence do you have? Some crusty old multitranslated book written by some random people? Well I guess you win...
If you can accept that there is a God that has always existed, why not skip the whole divine being bit and say the earth and all its inhabitants have existed forever? The whole divine being thing just gives 'holy men' a means of control ('of course I'm right! God said so.').
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
From the summary, it seems that these researchers are now saying that the upper atmosphere was cooler than originally thought, thus atmospheric hydrogen escaped at a slower rate. So these researchers are essentially using a mathematical climate model.
Climate science is very difficult even when we have the actual system to study (modern earth). How can we with any certainty at all know what that system performed like 4 billion years ago? It's time we admit that this research is interesting, but it will always be just speculation backed up data with an amazing depth of variability that is arrived at by making many assumptions.
Is this a case of scientists looking for data that supports a particular theory? They know that life could arise much more easily if hydrogen was more plentiful on early earth, so they pose theories and look for data to support that?
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
Other then the idea that the universe magically created itself and everything in it, exactly what parts of '200 years and thousands of independant(sic) pieces of information and the entire biology branch of science' have to be ignored? Creation is no more far fetched then evolution, your just changing what your god is.
Who said the universe was "created"? Time is part of the universe, so there is no meaning to the phrase "before" the universe. Creation implies that there is a time "before" the universe, so it could not have been created (Unless time is not part of the universe, but then you can define the "universe" to be a larger thing that does include time). Also, the observable law of conservation of mass and energy suggests that there was no point in time with a different amount of mass/energy thus strongly suggesting there was never a "creation".
The theory of relativity also suggests that time may be finite and there may be a point with no points in time before it, allowing the universe to never have been created and finite.
Also, changing my "god" to be "evolution" and the laws of physics is a big change. Because I am not only changing who my god is, I am changing the amount of complexity I throw unto this creature "god" which obviously represents the never-to-be-known. Thus I have more that I may know and less that I will never know.
Lots of people seem to be complaining about how science "got it wrong" and how we should all change our religious beliefs because of this.
I always thought this was how science worked. Come up with a theory which fits the data, and if new data comes in then change the theory. It would be stupid if they believed something when they had evidence to the contrary.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
I will most likely get modded down for this but it needs to be stated, this is fallacious reasoning. Your assuming the state of life as of today implies favorable conditions in the past.
More information of Fallacies and Logic.
When you publish the Bible.
The [insert religious denomination here] didn't publish the science textbooks.
Why should the bible be subject to special treatment?
Clones are people two.
Another theory is much more interesting: God created physical laws and then the universe evolved in the way we know. This idea, in my opinion, is acceptable for both people believing in God's finger and in the evolution theory.
objective proof -> compelling, reproducible evidence
There, that's better.
Doesn't follow. Still lots of faith in that post. Let's take a look at it:
Rene Descartes says we're imperfect. Completely agreed.
How can we conceive a perfect being? We don't. The christian god is an arrogant, angry being that makes his followers suffer. He's self contradictory in parts, and in the old testament just plain horrific. So, no, don't agree.
"Descarte also wrote, that God would never decieve us". Yes, of course, according to the opinion of some guy that died 355 years ago, God would never deceive us. Never mind that I wonder where he got the authority to say what God will do and won't do (surely that's blasphemy), after all those years who knows what he actually said. Don't agree.
"God is Truth" - completely nonsensical religious statement. Ignored.
"And that is where all human suffering origniates from.". So, how is that not faith when you make your conclusions from a book that provides no proof or evidence?
"As society gets more secular and starts making judgements without God, we will become more miserable". Very debatable. God is simply a human invention. And why your God, anyway, and not Zeus?
In any case, I disagree. I'd say that suffering noticeably decreased in our less religious times. Since we stopped believing that we'd be cured if we prayed hard enough we actually made some very nice advances in medicine - which were of course made at the cost of having to deal with opposition, and having to do research by digging out corpses from graves.
The difference is that it isn't forced down your throat in school.
And I'm amazed that those 970 people don't see that all life on earth is completely ruled by Nature's (read God's, if you prefer) laws. Tornadoes in tornado alley sweep churches away, just like the other houses. If they're built stronger, as determined by material sciences, they stand a better chance. God loves science! God loves engineers! Only their wishes are granted!
And I'm flabbergasted that people deny evolution when it flies right into their face, literally (flies resistant to DDT, for example). What are they going to do when they end up in heaven: Yell at God because he was so smart that he could set things off with a single big bang? Are they going to blame him for not telling explicity to use that 3 pound/1.5 kilo of brains and use their eyes and senses? I'd be mightly embarrassed if I made it to heaven and a good dose of sceptisism had brought me to creationism or intelligent design. If you want to see God, study nature. It is the only place he shows the wonders he created. And accept they way he created things, not how you'd like them to be created or how you're parents/educators told you how he created it.
You're relying for biology and physics on one page of some 2k old book, instead of your own eyes, senses, brains and the gigantic knowledgebase present in the science libraries? A book that self-admits that it isn't the word of god? With 4 different versions by Pete, John, Luke, what more proof do you want that it is humans who wrote that stuff down? Not only are there differences, but even the authors are mentioned by name!
I love religions, because they are so funny. Their disciples have an almighty god, but just for certainty's sake, the disciples must take matters in their own hand. And they fill the newspapers, like 9/11, start a war in Irak, and all that, realising at least the hell part of their belief.
On one thing we agree: I think it is more than likely that we will not fully understand everything. Heck, I even don't get the relativity theory. But one thing I know. If you're looking for truth of what is happening in Nature, don't pick a book with Y2K problems.
PS While you're at it, start reading the Koran. After two failed attempts (thora and bible), the Koran is the latest and greatest of this best selling author. It is 100% true, according to its disciples. Don't forget, Jews, Christians and Muslims all pray to the same god (evidence can be found in the author's books. For example, they all have Abraham talking to the author.)
where the hell did the cosmic egg/big bang come from?
;)
Perhaps this isn't exactly what you mean, but one good answer to the question "what existed before the Big Bang" (and one that makes me feel comfortable) is that, if you regard Big Bang as the beginning of Time itself, "before the Big Bang" is inherently nonsensical, and thus this is an illogical question to ask.
I believe Stephen Hawking mentioned this in (probably more than) one of his books; immediately after giving this argument, he parallelled it to what St. Augustine said when someone asked him what God was doing before he created the Universe: "he was creating hell, for those who ask too many questions".
Score: i, Imaginary
It really helps that you first of all not bunch up or confuse several different theories that have damn little in common. If you wish to believe in magic, go for it, but I for one am very interested in how things happened, not in simply handwaving the entirety of existence as some sort of unknowable act of Providence, because that is about as anti-knowledge as anything could be.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
As opposed to what? I mean, the misery that humanity suffered so often really didn't start to be dealt with until the Enlightenment. Christianity specifically, and religion in general, had had thousands of years to do its part, but it wasn't until humanist philosophers and political theorists came along that suddenly we saw some real interest in making life better. All Christianity had done up until that point was to be used as an apologetic for tyrants of various types (popes, kings, princes and emperors) to do whatever they wanted. Even the chief Protestant himself, Luther, had little or no sympathy for the average peasant in Europe at the time.
At least secular society gives us some hope of living together despite religious differences. I doubt very much you would like to live in the alternative. I know myself that I would hate to live at the sufferance of the faithful, who might accept my own lack of belief in their deity today, but tomorrow might decide to revoke that acceptance.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Either way, the Church does not state that any of it is true, only that parts of it are *possibly* true
to be fair, technically science says that too.
For example, read over the history of Influenza, a nonliving virus; it has changed by passage through its environment and differing strains have differing levels of success. You can observe this every year you are alive and see.-mutations causing varied lengths of prevalence for varied strains of Influenza. Preform the same research on, for example, E.Coli and notice that even with application of every antibiotic that exists to a sufficiently large culture, some will survive and colonies will develop-differentiation allowing survival. Greater complexity entails greater intervals but the same mechanisms are acting. Note the peculiarity of animal and plant life in Australia or the Galapagos islands for examples-isolation of those organisms has caused them to be subject to different environmental stresses and certain traits are widespread in those gene pools apart from others. That or shifts in breeding times cause speciation due to that separation. The big bang it is evidenced by the expansion of universe and has little to do, except philosophically, with evolution.
I've heard plenty of different version of "God's story." Each Christian sect has a slightly different version and/or interpretation. Many even believe in Evolutionary Theory and consider "God's story" to be allegorical. And then there are non-Christian religions which have totally different version's of "God's story." A lot of Creationists like to present a unified front against evolution, but we all know they are very much divided.
I believe we should teach creationism in schools, it will serve more people better. Out of a high school graduation class of 1000, how many will go on to a career in science? Say that 700 of them go on to college and that 300 go into the work force. Of the 700, 100 decide they want to major in physics or chemistry. Of them 70 get weeded out. You now have 30 people who will continue. The other 970 people will be better served with an education that focuses on creationism.
Ahh, so that's it. It isn't really about the truth. Tt is about what people need to know or what YOU think will serve them better. I have a better idea. Lets teach people to seek the truth and give the best known facts. At least that would be honest. You are talking about manipulating people.
We are living in a time with relative ethics.
Name a time when ethics were absolute and didn't vary widely between cultures and individuals. Do you mean Biblical times when people were stoned to death for adultery?
We are living in an increasing secular society, where life means little.
As opposed to when? Biblical times where people were, again, stoned to death for petty crimes? And whole cities were struck down by a vengeful God? How do you account for the fact that most modern societies today have abolished capital punishment? Really, I think yoiu are projecting your cynicism and disillusionment more than describing the way things are or where they are headed. You are romanticizing the past.
We all watched in horror as the Teri Shiavo in Florida was starved to death.
Actually, many watched in relief as a severely brain damaged woman was allowed to die. Depends on how you look at it.
That never should have happened, in the light that there is information that her husband might have beat her the night she collapsed, and the uncertainty of her wishes.
What shouldn't have happened is that the story should never have made the news. It should never have made it to congress. It was a private matter and I am appalled that people like felt you needed to make it your business. I know you think you have some clue about the situation, but you don't.
Even our most prized and well written scientists believe in God. Einstein believed in God, he was quoted as saying "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are just details".
They believed in God and yet they didn't believe in Creation. Why do you tihnk that was? Actually, the original sciensts did believe in creation until they started investigating the natural world and found that it couldn't have been created as "God's story" says.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
(From the UW article)
I have a question for the abiogenesis advocates on this forum. When was Miller's experiment NOT relevant? Toon says the experiments are relevant *again*; that implies they weren't relevant at some time in the past. When was that?
Of course, I don't ask the question without knowing the answer. I also ask it because it points out a significant flaw in the way we teach abiogenesis theory. The answer to my question is, Miller's experiments were rendered moot several DECADES ago, when all the models pointed to early Earth having an oxygenating atmosphere. No one ever has come up with a model or scenario that would give early Earth the required reducing atmosphere that would make Miller's experiment relevant. But, every time I have pointed this out to evolutionists/abiogenesis advocates over the last 2 decades (and I have done so several times in the last 20 years), they have uniformly denied its significance.
This continues the characteristic that I find universally in the evolutionary community. They refuse to acknowledge any flaws in their accepted evolutionary model until after they believe they have a solution to those flaws.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
That's a pretty strong statement for a mere simulation. Are we going back to the mythology of the ancient Greek "scientists," who believed that truth could only be found by reason, not by experiments? If not, then we need some experimental results showing that early Earth had a reducing atmosphere. It's nice that these models say our atmosphere was mostly hydrogen; but, if they are correct, there had to have been a physical record created by this environment. There must be an explanation for the lack of evidence supporting the model in the rocks we examine. Otherwise, the UW theory is just wishful thinking that you have latched onto too eagerly.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
"We all watched in horror as the Teri Shiavo in Florida was starved to death."
I hear you, Brother!
And didn't we both look on in disbelief when Pope John Paul the Second died, instead of entering a persistent vegetative state?
Terrible.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
The fact that evolution is a theory does not make creationism anything besides a middle eastern myth from ~3500 years ago, probably dreamed up (at least written down) by clerics trying to keep order among a peasant and slave class, passed to our time through a sketchy set of translations, and believed now by simpletons and Republicans. I can't stand when some Bible-beating dork states that, because creationism can't be proved, then any cockamamie story his grandmother told him is just as likely to be true. Crap, I say! Creationism isn't science, it's literature. Get over it.
Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
From your link:
If, therefore, a particular version of evolutionary theory assumes a complete, purely natural continuity between human beings and other animals, including the emergence of the human mind from mere matter apart from any more-than natural-(or supernatural) cause, that view must be false. A scientist who claims to explain everything about man in terms of evolution winds up explaining nothing, for there is no basis for thinking anything he says about man is true. He traps his theory-not to mention himself-in a naturalistic straightjacket. He must hold that he himself theorizes as he does simply because the whole universe and its physical, biochemical laws move the molecules around in his head that way, not because he's discovered some "truth" about the way things are.
This is complete bullshit. I am amazed how many times religious people sprinkle this kind of magic pixie dust to produce a holier-than-thou philosophy. The steps in the process are:
(1) identify something that we cannot possibly know one way or another (for example, the origin of the universe, or free will vs. determinism).
(2) pronounce some spiritual hocus pocus to answer the problem.
(3) ignore the fact that the spiritual answer suffers the same problem.
(4) take tithes from the ignorant.
(5) profit!
In this particular case, free will vs. determinism is not answered by postulating the existance of a soul because that "answer" suffers *exactly* the same problem: maybe thoughts move throught the soul in a deterministic way.
Much the same can be said for the cosmological (first cause) argument.
So, in that scenario, God would be the ultimate deceiver.
What a bastard.