h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

James, rather than take the religion thread off-topic, I moved this here:

Now here is another one for you how long does it take for a planet to cool to the point it will become inhabited?

First you must make clear what you mean by "become inhabited" - do you mean "for life to begin", or "for human visitors to establish a colony"?

For life to survive the hazards and riggers of molten, flowing, landmasses, and having an ecosystem that can be sustained in the air that surrounds the planet.

James

"For life to survive the hazards and riggers of molten, flowing, landmasses, and having an ecosystem that can be sustained in the air that surrounds the planet."

You've got hat the wrong way round - you can't have an eco system before you have life.

I will choose, then, to assume you mean "how long before a planet cools enough for abiogenesis to occur and life to start".

In which case, the answer is "it doesn't have to cool at all".

Life can exist in almost any conditions imaginable. Life flourishes around undersea volcanic vents at temperatures that would render you or I into greasy smears in the open air.

I know you don't like modern texts, but I highly recommend you buy or borrow a copy of "What Does a Martian Look Like?" by Stewart & Cohen.

If planet earth was anything like Saturn no life could have existed until the gasses were favourable.

At this moment in time nothing could possibly exist on Saturn.

So how long did it take for planets like earth and Mars to be in the position of being habitable?

I do believe the calculation are based on thermodynamics so should not be too difficult to work out.


James

You are being very narrow in your definition of life if you expect "the gases to be favourable". There is no reason to assume that life requires particular gases to start or continue to exist.

When life first formed on this planet, the state of the atmosphere would be utterly deadly to air-breathing life today. Today's oxygen-rich atmosphere would be deadly to the first organisms - in fact, when the first photosynthesising organisms evolved, their waste (oxygen) caused a huge die-back until other organisms evolved to exploit the oxygenated air. Even now, excess oxygen is toxic to most life-forms.

When the first proto-life forms appeared on this planet, large parts of it were still molten, and kept so by an almost constant pounding from meteors and cometary debris.

"At this moment in time nothing could possibly exist on Saturn."
No, what you mean is that probably no Earth life that you know of could survive there.

"So how long did it take for planets like earth and Mars to be in the position of being habitable?

I do believe the calculation are based on thermodynamics so should not be too difficult to work out."

If it's so simple to work out, why not do it yourself?

There are only two schools of thought on the subject and both have been worked out already, one was put forward by Kelvin and the other by Rutherford so I do not have to work it out but just find out which school you prefer?

James

It's not a matter of "schools of thought", it's a matter of facts and evidence.

How about you supply some facts for a change? To whit: what is the point of your original question, given the fact that you are a Young Earth Creationist, and have already decided what the answer is?

I am not a young earth creationist And I use sound science to prove my points rather than the hazy evolutionists dream time theories.

The earth’s crust can be measured and the rate of heat loss can be determined, unless of coarse you need some billions of years for evolution to work then you have to through science out of the window and take on the wishful thinking of Rutherford.

You pick and then tell us why you prefer one to the other?

James

What's to pick?

If you use Science, you know Kelvin got it wrong because he wasn't in full possession of the facts.

By asking me to choose between Kelvin and Rutherford (who supplied the missing facts), you are demonstrating nothing but the age or falseness of your references - there is no competent or honest scientist who would say Kelvin was right, but then neither would they criticise his calculations; he did the best he could with the available data.

Even though he was wrong, he still proved that the Earth was far, far older than creationists (like you - no point denying it now when you have admitted it several times in the past, and you follow a cult who's official policy is YEC) would still like to admit.

Unless (oh, here we go again), you have some EVIDENCE to say that radiometric dating is wrong?

Go on, you've been claiming to possess evidence for years, but you have never, ever presented it.

I call you now, cough up the evidence or remain forever a LYING, DISINGENUOUS JW YEC.

You have no evidence, there is no evidence.

All there is is your fear that maybe you are wrong about the Universe, maybe I am right. Because If I am right, then the whole basis of your faith is wrong.

Is that it, James? Is that why you spend so much time and effort trying (and failing) to prove Science wrong by attempting to attack me?

Go on, answer me straight for once, I dare you.

Attacking you is not a problem that I have I do not know you and if I did, you would not be a person I would normally carry on a conversation with.

All I have done in the past it to point out were your continual attacks on any JW that posts on the religious forum are in the most just blatant harassment, which I pointed out in the beginning is quite typical of most anti establishment rhetoric that is performed in colleges and government owned or controlled businesses.

So to here that you have been to college and are a teacher comes as no surprise to me.

No JW will tell you how old the earth is as there is no indication as to its age in scripture.

When creation was started on the earth is another matter; JW's use the last creative day as a measure of the other six creative days.
That last day being the Sabbath which will continue for one more thousand years, which will make it seven thousand years long.

All this means is that JW's look upon the creative days as being of a seven thousand year duration, the same lenth as the Sabbeth.

The scientist who come the closest to these time periods is Kelvin with his formula, were as Ratherford is into outer space with his, so cannot be taken seriously

James

You believe life was created on earth six thousand years ago, but say you're not a Young Earth Creationist? Bizarre.

And you accept Kelvin's calculation of the earth's age because it is closer to what you had assumed, not because it is right?

That is not Science, that is nor even vaguely honest.

Rutherford's data isn't "into outer space", it is accurate, and has been substantiated by many other Scientists, using many other methods in the years since.

(And I notice you still haven't provided any evidence for your wild claims. I wonder why?)

So were has all the radiation gone that Rutherford said was there?

James

What do you mean "where has it gone"?

It radiated, that's what radiation does. The clue is in the name...

Then you are saying that the earth was hotter for longer than Kelvin proved it to be there for was uninhabitable for longer leaving absolutely no time for evolution to occur even if such a phenomena were remotely possible.

James

No, I am saying that it took longer to cool than Kelvin calculated.

I have not stated at what date the surface of the earth cooled enough to allow liquid water.

In case you are interested (which I doubt), the current estimate is that the Earth had cooled enough for liquid water to exist, and abiogenesis to occur, within 200 million years of the planet forming. That's 4.3 billion years ago - more than enough time for even the slowest evolutionary models to produce all we see around us, and more.

And on what grounds do you state that evolution is not possible?

It has been directly observed in many animals and plants, both in the laboratory and in the wild. I myself have handled the two new morphs of winkle that are evolving on the North east coast of the UK.

And what is "no time" for evolution? it happens on a generation-by-generation basis, and some organisms' generations are only minutes long...

(And you still haven't presented any evidence to say that evolution is impossible anyway.)

As you and most other scientist have no more knowledge of when the earth was habitable what you put forward is not scientific evidence, but pure speculation which has no basis in reality.

If the earth had been kept hot for aeons of time by atomic radiation, it also would have been uninhabitable by any form of life due to the radiation you can not have your cake and eat it. When the hot earth started to cool it would have still done so based on Kelvin’s formula

What you appear to be calling evolution is what science has been stuck with since it tried to prove that there was such a thing, and that is variation of the species, no were have scientists come near to proving that one species can produce a new species or type.

For some to say they can is just a dishonest distortion of what has been found so far.

If you are happy to deceive your mind on this matter that is up to you but judging an others belief system add hock without knowledge of it is all so unreasoning.

First prove your own belief system then get back to us, you have a couple more years of this system to run so not too much time left to amuse yourself at others expens.

Just in case you start jumping up and down saying end of the world. What is to happen next is the fall of all false religion a plague upon the air and a special meeting together of the kings of the earth to get rid of Gods people while in the mean time, anguish of nations not knowing the way out.



James

> As you and most other scientist have no more knowledge of when the earth was habitable what you put forward is not scientific evidence, but pure speculation which has no basis in reality.

You can believe what you like, but the evidence is sound.

> If the earth had been kept hot for aeons of time by atomic radiation, it also would have been uninhabitable by any form of life due to the radiation you can not have your cake and eat it. When the hot earth started to cool it would have still done so based on Kelvin’s formula

Again, you have this narrow definition of life, presumably mislead by the so-called "Goldilocks Hypothesis". You also have a strange idea of the nature of radiation. When it occurs inside something dense (like rock), then the energy heats the rock up.

The Earth did not cool according to Kelvin's calculations because they did not include the heating provided by the subterranean radioactive decay.

> What you appear to be calling evolution is what science has been stuck with since it tried to prove that there was such a thing, and that is variation of the species, no were have scientists come near to proving that one species can produce a new species or type.

Changing the labels does not change the facts. Evolution happens. Scientists have observed it. Why should they try and disprove an observed fact?

> For some to say they can is just a dishonest distortion of what has been found so far.

The dishonesty and distortion is from you and your kind. You keep claiming that there is evidence to disprove evolution. Yet, after years of asking, you have done nothing more than ignore the request.

> If you are happy to deceive your mind on this matter that is up to you but judging an others belief system add hock without knowledge of it is all so unreasoning.

This is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of facts and evidence.

> First prove your own belief system then get back to us, you have a couple more years of this system to run so not too much time left to amuse yourself at others expens.

Evolution has been proven to the satisfaction of the entire scientific community.

> Just in case you start jumping up and down saying end of the world. What is to happen next is the fall of all false religion a plague upon the air and a special meeting together of the kings of the earth to get rid of Gods people while in the mean time, anguish of nations not knowing the way out.

Utter rot, of course, but feel free to get back to me whenever it happens. I won't hold my breath, though.

Two days, and all quiet.

Good job I didn't hold my breath.

You have at least one year of grace, make the most of it.

The attack on religions is well under way.


James