How Water Forms in Interstellar Space at 10K

KentuckyFC writes "Water is the most abundant solid material in space. But although astronomers see it on planets, moons, in comets and in interstellar clouds, nobody has been able to show how it forms. In theory, it should form easily when oxygen and atomic hydrogen meet. The problem is that there is not enough of it floating around as gas in interstellar dust clouds. So instead, the thinking is that water must form when atomic hydrogen interacts with frozen solid oxygen on the surface of dust grains in these clouds. Now Japanese astronomers have demonstrated this process for the first time in the lab in conditions that simulate interstellar space. That's cool because all the water in the solar system, including almost every drop you drink on Earth today, must have formed in exactly this way more than 5 billion years ago in a pre-solar dustcloud (abstract)."

Re:5 billion years ago ?

[ShieldW0lf]

The more we learn, the more obvious it becomes that life, far from being a unique or rare thing in the universe, is actually an inevitable natural process, and will consistently and repeatedly erupt under environmental conditions that are actually very common across the universe.

Must it?

[pla]

That's cool because all the water in the solar system, including almost every drop you drink on Earth today, must have formed in exactly this way more than 5 billion years ago in a pre-solar dustcloud

Why must it? Could you justify that statement?

Gravity alone tends to cause interstellar clouds to collapse into stellar accretion disks, and then into stars and planets.

Although the Hydrogen and Oxygen in the original cloud may have had almost zero chance of getting together, once the cloud collapsed into relatively dense planetary atmospheres, why couldn't water have formed then?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

If that is true

[spun]

When will people realize that it is okay to be a young earth Creationist and still believe in science. The Darwinists have things mostly right, it's just that God created the Universe 6000 years ago and made it APPEAR to be much older. Time, as we observe it, is directly controlled by God and as such he can manipulate it to be anything He wills.

Then fuck God. Fuck Him right in the ear. Because he's a sick fuck who won't allow his creations to perceive the truth about their origins, who deliberately set out to deceive us, and I will NEVER worship a sick son of a bitch like that.

Re:5 billion years ago ?

[Dog-Cow]

A better question is when will people realize that the Bible never specifies the date of creation. Only idiots take the story literally.

Re:If that is true

[Planesdragon]

Then fuck God. Fuck Him right in the ear. Because he's a sick fuck who won't allow his creations to perceive the truth about their origins, who deliberately set out to deceive us, and I will NEVER worship a sick son of a bitch like that.

?

You, ah, DO realize that God told us all of this, far before we could understand it, right?

Complaining about apparent nuance in the deity's creation is kind of like complaining that your stoner parents are straight-laced professionals now, even though they tell you they were stoners whenever you ask.

I could tell you how easy it is to reconcile the six-day creation with the universe's apparent age without the introduction of deception, but you've obviously made a religious choice to be atheist, and nothing I can say would dissuade you from that.

Instead, how about the gospel in 26 words? "God exists, He loves you, and even though you probably deserve to go to hell, He's willing to let you off if you love Him back."

So if you can't take it literally...

[Animaether]

...and it is a 'story'... then would you agree to call 'The Bible' a work of fiction?

Re:If that is true

[spun]

Right. God left clear indications in a book which he neglected to make available to 99% of the population. Then he made light in transit from galaxies billions of light years away, buried dinosaur bones, futzed with radioactive decay, and did a bunch of other crap specifically to make it look like the world is billions of years old. But hey, he gave that book explaining it all in cryptic language to a few people in the Middle East, so all that lying and deception is okay.

Re:Sure looks that way

[Starcub]

Yeah, the Earth is continuosly being bombarded by meteorites that burn up entirely in the atmosphere. No doubt that hydrogen is released and mixed into the atmosphere in the process. We know that oxygen is produced via natural processes, and is crucial for the development the Ozone layer. So I'm sure the Earth (with it's atmosphere) is constantly producing new water.

Now if we could find 5 billion year old wine, *that* would be news!

Re:If that is true

[spun]

Right. Well, there's still the whole "If you don't love me I will punish you infinitely for your finite sins" angle. That alone makes the Christian God batshit insane in my book.

Re:I agree that we should toss christianity

[hjrnunes]

I agree. Were it not for christianity, we could have stronger, Roman values, and could merely justify the extermination of our enemies because they were weaker.

Just where exactly did you learn about those Roman values that justify the extermination of our enemies? It seems to me that you don't know much - perhaps nothing - about Romans. If there was ever a civilization that was fair with the people it conquered, it was Roma. In fact, I'd rather have my culture and nation exterminated by Romans a thousand times than a single one by Christians... I think you should take a look on a few History books that don't have "Holy Bible" written in the cover.

Re:If that is true

[hcdejong]

So you can just will things into existence?

Sorry, I assumed you knew the term. In this context, 'free will' is in opposition to 'predestination', the notion that God has planned our lives beforehand and we can't influence our own lives.

If man were created without the possibility of sin, he wouldn't be truly free. He wouldn't have the choice of living within or without God's presence. Again, not very interesting for God.

Why would God's sense of right and wrong be any more artificial than yours? And where does your sense of right and wrong come from? And how does your sense of right and wrong differ from the Biblical sense of right and wrong?