Hydroplate oxygen prediction validated

[Sealeaf]

The alcohol and sugar thing was not just "click bait", it was actually found. What it means is anyone quess.

 

[Stripe]

The error is here. And in the title.

The find in the comets (molecular oxygen) doesn't have anything to do with them being "rich in Oxygen 18".

It is an error. And you should admit it.

Strange as it may seem, you will actually gain credibility if you admit your error.

I've already "admitted" everything you're calling an "error" and well before you trolls appeared. :troll:

This thread is about something and the issues you are raising have already been thoroughly dealt with.

Look at me: I'm so ticked off I'm using the British spelling.

Get with the program. :up: Comets have oxygen, a discovery that has thrown the evolutionary story of the origin of the solar system into turmoil, while the Hydroplate theory provides a simple pathway toward its presence.

The alcohol and sugar thing was not just "click bait", it was actually found. What it means is anyone quess.

Or it's not a guess at all, but based on a substantive theory chock-full of predictions set out, validated or successful.

 

[chair]

I've already "admitted" everything you're calling an "error"

No, you haven't. As evidence, I present the following:

Comets have oxygen, a discovery that has thrown the evolutionary story of the origin of the solar system into turmoil, while the Hydroplate theory provides a simple pathway toward its presence.

Oxygen 18 and Oxygen are not the same thing.

I won't put any more effort into trying to make you intellectually honest. It is something you have to do for yourself.

 

[gcthomas]

Get with the program. :up: Comets have oxygen, a discovery that has thrown the evolutionary story of the origin of the solar system into turmoil, while the Hydroplate theory provides a simple pathway toward its presence.

Your lack of honesty continues to astonish me.

http://www.astrochem.org/docs/11_Sandford_etal-galley proof.pdf

Here is a paper from 2007 that summarises knowledge about oxygen in comets. It describes how O2 molecules would be expected to be incorporated in cometary ices from interstellar molecular clouds as the solar system formed. (So current observation of O2 expected)

It also points out that the O-18 isotope was measured in Halley's Comet in 1995. (Great post hoc prediction Walt! Guaranteed winner. :chuckle: )

So, given this previous art, what sort of turmoil do you expect from the discovery that the new observations are consistent with previous ones and with their theory of Comet formation?

 

[Stripe]

I won't put any more effort into trying to make you intellectually honest.

OK, bye. :wave2:

Your lack of honesty continues to astonish me.

While your hyperbole is just plain boring. :yawn:

Here is a paper from 2007 that summarises knowledge about oxygen in comets. It describes how O2 molecules would be expected to be incorporated in cometary ices from interstellar molecular clouds as the solar system formed. (So current observation of O2 expected)

And yet the researchers say ideas of the formation of the entire solar system might need to be changed in light of this latest discovery. :think:

That they found something and recorded it doesn't make me dishonest. And it's completely useless to point out that they have found oxygen. Of course they have. The point is: How did it get there?

It also points out that the O-18 isotope was measured in Halley's Comet in 1995. (Great post hoc prediction Walt! Guaranteed winner. :chuckle: )

Of course, you have no idea when Dr Brown made the prediction.

 

[chair]

OK, bye. :wave2:

You really are pathetic.
Have a nice day.

 

[Stripe]

You really are pathetic.

You really are a troll. :troll:

 

[gcthomas]

The point is: How did it get there?

From the molecular cloud that supplied the rest of the material. Molecular oxygen has been seen in the giant molecular clouds, don't you know?

Of course, you have no idea when Dr Brown made the prediction.

He started circulating his ideas in the late 1980s, while the scientists had planned the oxygen isotope instruments for the Halley mission in the late 1970s.

 

[Stripe]

From the molecular cloud that supplied the rest of the material.

Asserting the existence of physical entities without evidence is not at all convincing. Moreover, oxygen does not last that long.

 

[gcthomas]

Asserting the existence of physical entities without evidence is not at all convincing. Moreover, oxygen does not last that long.

Some a molecular cloud is the putative origin of the early solar nebula, and molecular clouds have been observed to have O2 now, then your assertions that O2 can't last long enough is just an assertion.

You said that the theory is in turmoil - quite obviously the new observations will fit in just fine with some small adjustments to the specific starting conditions (O2 lasts fine in very cold and chemically stable comets; it is the creation of it in the first place that is more unusual. It needs a slightly warmer than expected molecular cloud.)

Walt did not predict the O2, so anything you claim now is post hoc, while I gave you an old paper with it discussed.

No turmoil on my side, just panic and misdirection from you, as usual.

 

[Stripe]

Some a molecular cloud is the putative origin of the early solar nebula.

Inventing a physical entity for evidence isn't convincing, no matter how many times you do it.

Molecular clouds have been observed to have O2 now, then your assertions that O2 can't last long enough is just an assertion.

So because there is thought to be molecular oxygen in space, it must have been there for billions of years? Sorry, asserting the truth of what you want to believe is not evidence.

And you're missing the point as usual: This discovery has thrown doubt on the evolutionary model of the solar system's formation.

You said that the theory is in turmoil.

Nope. That would be the evolutionists who ran these tests.

You lose all credibility when you cannot even properly attribute ideas.

The new observations will fit in just fine with some small adjustments to the specific starting conditions.

I see you have faith.

O2 lasts fine in very cold and chemically stable comets.

There is no such thing as a "stable" comet. They are ephemeral entities, especially on the scales of time you need to believe in.

It is the creation of it in the first place that is more unusual. It needs a slightly warmer than expected molecular cloud.)

Or it could just come from Earth. :idunno:

Walt did not predict the O2, so anything you claim now is post hoc, while I gave you an old paper with it discussed.

Well, no. You have not established any of this. You still do not even know when Dr Brown made the prediction, while you shifted the goalposts with regard to when he would have to have made the prediction by.

No turmoil on my side, just panic and misdirection from you, as usual.

:darwinsm:

You're still trying to regain your composure after your dictionary gaffe. :chuckle:

 

[gcthomas]

OK. You can't tell me when the prediction was made. You can't show that Walt made a prediction about O2 at all. This whole thread seems to have been intended to bolster Walt's book sales, but you have had to make up the link since the story is unrelated to anything Walt has written.

So, not a threat to physics, no support to Walt's magical imaginings.

So no change here then. :carryon:

 

[Stripe]

OK. You can't tell me when the prediction was made.

That's right. I can't find when the prediction was made. If I do, I'll let you know.

However, the problem is from your end. You declared the prediction to have been made post hoc when you had no evidence to believe so. You are solely determined to put in a bad light everything that does not bow to your precious evolutionism. You are never interested in science.

If you were, the success of Dr Brown's work would intrigue you. Instead, you know nothing about it.

You can't show that Walt made a prediction about O2 at all. This whole thread seems to have been intended to bolster Walt's book sales, but you have had to make up the link since the story is unrelated to anything Walt has written. So, not a threat to physics, no support to Walt's magical imaginings. So no change here then. :carryon:

Fluff and nonsense. There is a vast ocean of ideas we could explore. You'd probably be able to contribute to the advancement of our understanding. However, you're not interested when there is even a hint of threat to your precious religion.

Get with the program. Learn to have a discussion. :up:

 

[dialm]

Do you think there is any Satanic activity on these O2 comets? Or are there only 'good' Angels flying them?

 

[dialm]

Wait. I'm sorry. How presumptuous of me. Maybe Lucifer is a goodie.

 

[Stripe]

Additions to the online version of the book in response to the latest news:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets5.html

Comet 67P’s atmosphere also contained molecular oxygen. Scientists were stunned; O2 should not have been there, because it readily breaks apart and reacts with other chemicals to form compounds such as water, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide; when it reacts with itself, it forms ozone (O3). No ozone was on 67P. Molecular oxygen is what we breathe on Earth and is relatively rare except on Earth. Earth’s surface waters are saturated with dissolved molecular oxygen. The amount of O2 in 67P’s atmosphere was strongly correlated with the amount of water vapor in the comet’s atmosphere; the more water vapor that escaped from inside the comet as it warmed during the comet’s daytime and as it approached the sun, the more O2 entered 67P’s atmosphere. Therefore, molecular oxygen was dissolved in the water ice when the comet formed. O2 was incorporated into the nucleus during the comet’s formation. Current Solar System formation models do not predict conditions that would allow this to occur This explains why O2 did not have a chance to combine with hydrogen, carbon, or all 67P’s complex organic compounds listed in [the table on the Web site] to form water, carbon dioxide, or carbon monoxide. If comets formed billions of years ago, how could that O2 remain locked up in ice for all that time — through the formation of the solar system and comets, after innumerable impacts (from rocks to photons), and after millions of passes by the Sun? Kathrin Altwegg of the University of Bern, who coauthored this surprising report in the journal Nature admitted: “We never thought that oxygen could ‘survive’ for billions of years.” If comets brought the chemicals for life to Earth, why didn’t the O2 gobble up those chemicals long before they reached Earth? We all know what O2 does to dead bodies.