Solar System's Water Is Older Than the Sun 173
astroengine writes Next time you're swimming in the ocean, consider this: part of the water is older than the sun. So concludes a team of scientists who ran computer models comparing the ratios of hydrogen isotopes over time. Taking into account new insights that the solar nebula had less ionizing radiation than previously thought, the models show that at least some of the water found in the ocean, as well as in comets, meteorites and on the moon, predate the sun's birth.
Of course it does. (Score:5, Insightful)
For anything in the solar system to be YOUNGER than the sun, it would have to be MADE by the sun, or as a byproduct of the sun achieving fusion. Our planet is younger than the sun itself, but the elements that comprise it are much, much older.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking about common sense, "Next time you're swimming in the ocean consider this: SHARKS"
Re: (Score:2)
This article explains it more clearly, the author at Discovery is confused.
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com.au]
For sure the hydrogen and oxygen are much older than the sun, but are the water molecules older than the sun? The formation of the sun may have caused the creation of a lot of new water molecules out of the ancient elements. Or did the water molecules form in interstellar space before the sun's birth?
Re: (Score:2)
And that's water molecules not on earth, where our lovely biological organisms like to fuck with molecules.
Re: (Score:2)
Water Molecules (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Not disagreeing at all but on the other hand don't comets pick up water as it encounters it throughout their life? Is it possible a comet is older than the sun but much of the H2O on it was picked much more recently than when it was born?
But again, no it does not surprise me that water molecules that still exist today possibly formed before the sun...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we already have plenty of evidence that a very large comet full of ice airbursted over Earth several thousands of years ago [wordpress.com], so I am not surprised of the article's findings. I've never heard of comets gathering ice over time, rather the opposite (gassing out over time, fragmenting and finally becoming dark/inactive).
Re: (Score:3)
That only applies to atoms, not molecules. I can point to oodles of molecules that in a "most recent step" sense were made by the sun (e.g., through UV radiation or 'solar bleaching') and oodles of molecules that in that same sense were not (e.g., plastics).
TFA is ref
Re: (Score:2)
For anything in the solar system to be YOUNGER than the sun, it would have to be MADE by the sun, or as a byproduct of the sun achieving fusion. Our planet is younger than the sun itself, but the elements that comprise it are much, much older.
Or arrived in the solar system after the sun formed. There is that possibility.
They don't mean elements, but *water* (Score:2)
From TFA, which quotes the original author:
“The finding ... makes it quite hard for these regions in the disk to synthesize any new molecules. This was an 'aha' moment for us -- without any new water creation the only place these ices could have come from was the chemically rich interstellar gas out of which the solar system formed originally,” Cleeves wrote in an email to Discovery News.
“It's remarkable that these ices survived the entire process of stellar birth,” she added.
(Bold mine)
Re: (Score:2)
OF COURSE IT DOES.
And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. ... 3Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
Captcha: exalted.
Re:Of course it does. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm still trying to figure out how there was a day and night before the sun existed? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Obtuse people are obtuse, eh?
God had an iWatch, obviously.
Not necessarily. (Score:3)
The main component of wood is cellulose, a polysaccharide consisting of building blocks of six carbon atoms, ten hydrogens and five oxygen atoms.
Take one of those C6H10O5 building blocks an burn it completely with 6 O2 molecules, and you get 6 CO2 molecules and 5 brand-spanking new water molecules.
Of course real wood fires release other byproducts as well, carbon monoxide and soot, which are particles of mostly amorphous carbon. But water is definitely a byproduct of burning, just as it is a byproduct of r
Old water (Score:5, Funny)
If our solar systems water is older than the sun why does my bottle of Fiji expire in a year? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Because you'll run out of plasticizers in the bottle. The water will have stolen them all.
is this not true (Score:2)
of almost all matter that exists anywhere?
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it pretty much have to be?
It's not like we've been making new matter here on Earth in any quantities. :-P
If there was a big cloud that eventually formed our sun and planets, then all of the matter came before the sun existed before the sun. And stuff coming from outside (or the very far bits) of our solar system was also there before.
Unless new matter is just springing into existence. And I can't fathom how that would happen.
If "we are made of starstuff", it's because all of these elements have b
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it pretty much have to be?
Nope.
The oil they dig up from the ground is clearly younger than the sun, even if the hydrogen and carbon atoms in it are older. Right?
Likewise, the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in water are clearly older than the sun, but its hardly a forgone conclusion that they've been bonded together as water the entire time. Quite the opposite even.
Odds are most of the water around us hasn't been water the entire time. A lot of the oxygen in the water around us may have spent some time a
Bet most water is older than the sun (Score:2)
Stars create water when they blow up, super nova etc. Our sun does NOT create water (yet). Perhaps in 4 billion years when our sun exhausts hydrogen and helium...it might.
Our solar system is for the most part comprised of mater created 4.5 billion years ago or earlier. Perhaps a supernova some 6-10 billion years go left hydrogen, helium, all the periodic elements we see today. Rocks, asteroids, meteors, all remnants of whatever happened before 4.5 billion years ago as our solar system formed.
My guess, i
Re: (Score:2)
Well of course. It takes Supernovae to make things like Oxygen and gold and to disperse Iron and other elements, so ALL this stuff had to exist or be made long before it coalesced into the Solar nebula and eventually formed planets and a star.
The iron in your blood was made inside an exploding star a very long time ago. Look at your hand and think about that: what you take for granted has already been through some of the most violent explosions in the known universe. But today, you mostly use it for ..
LOL ... (Score:2)
Fish fuck in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Fish fuck in it.
They also poop & pee in it. Mainly those big ass mammals in there.
That is the real reason oceans are salty, whale piss.
Re: (Score:2)
Your understanding of fish reproduction leaves much to be desired.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, and I'll go with my interpretation here, you're understanding of humor [goodreads.com] leaves much to be desired.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm understanding of humor just doesn't find it funny.
The Water? (Score:2)
Or the Hydrogen and oxygen making it up?
I'd venture a guess that, what with water molecules continually dissasotiating into H+ and OH- ions and then recombining, most of our water is quite young.
Water on the moon? (Score:2)
Hmm, I guess those Aliens up there have to drink something.
But seriously, we have found water on the moon?
Re: (Score:3)
Older than Dirt (Score:2)
Solar system timing (Score:2)
And this is suprising how? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that the sun is a Population I star, aren't you? Meaning it's a very young star?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the interesting part is the order of these observables, per the model's "findings" (or perhaps more appropriately, "focus"), from the perspective of the Earth, mirrors the sequence given in Genesis.
There are lots of different ways to conceptualize this finding, and there would still be many issues with a literal application of Genesis, which is why as I said I'm still an Old Earth Creationist (or an advocate of "directed evolution", if you prefer).
Caveats, disclaimers, mysteries, etc. hereby included b
Re: (Score:2)
For example, believing my conclusions are based on no evidence, you having no possible evidence for this or way of reviewing my brain or life to know this, as a reflection of your psychic powers?
There's peer-reviewed evidence linked in this very thread. If your psychic powers fail you in this case, some clicking should get you there. I'm not relinking it here.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you're both good little Dawkins parrots, but yes, it is in fact -epistemologically impossible- to say that you know somebody else is making a conclusion based on no evidence.
This is actually, -provably- irrational, per the whole history of Western Philosophy and all of science.
It is possible one has evidence of something. It is possible that one does not have evidence of something. It is -impossible-, -always-, to know that nobody has said evidence. No matter the subject. No matter the situation
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible one has evidence of something. It is possible that one does not have evidence of something.
Still waiting to hear your evidence...
tick
tock
tick
tock
tick
tock...
Re: (Score:2)
There's numerous arguments around biological complexity and IC that provide evidence. And whether the universe per se is evidence or not is a question of interpretation. As Einstein said, you either consider everything a miracle, or nothing a miracle. Same basic thing. We could revisit all the general arguments around IC here, but nothing will change that from being evidence, neither political insults or goalpost-shifting that it isn't "proof". I neither claimed it was, nor that my link would have anyt
Re: (Score:2)
Add Aristotle and Plato to your bookmarks too, for extra humor material. Old = wrong, right?
How long do I have to wait exactly until I know a particular idea has passed it's truth spoilage date? That would be handy to know.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and here. [wikipedia.org]
And this. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You stated "a several thousand year old myth", and the age was the only thing there's any backing for, no matter how dumb (and I'll have to repeat it, because I have no doubt you've been persistently this dumb for years, so saying that was perfectly natural for you) it is to consider age relevant to something's truth-status.
The "myth" part you gave absolutely no backing for at all. And I see from you repeating that claim you don't get what a Bare Assertion fallacy is, either.
I seriously hope nobody listens
Re: (Score:2)
Population 1? I highly doubt there's anyone living there!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Anything other than an allegorical OEC reading is inconsistent with the historical understanding of the poetic nature of biblical prophetic visions as they appear in Genesis or Revelation, or whatever. YEC'er's trying to draw pseudoscientific observations from Genesis 1 understand as little about scripture as they do science.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... I also take the allegorical nature of Genesis and that of Revelation to be parallel. While it contains spiritual metaphors and truths, I am quite sure that nobody thought a literal dragon would be literally chasing around a literal pregnant woman during the "end times", from the very moment Revelation was first written down, up until today.
Similarly, I interpret Genesis as predominately metaphorical. That doesn't mean however, that certain elements we may have originally presumed were allegory, mig
Re: (Score:2)
I see we have Slashdot's typical systematic "overrated" downvoting of religion posts in lieu of an actual counterargument again.
Don't be shy, mods. You can share it with us, if you have it. You know I'll be asking you about it again much later anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There is not a single accurate thing in this post.
I understand by your sole reliance on silly negative characterization (yes, when you want to use the term "sky daddy" instead of the standard terminology, relying on us to consider that both the same, and not the same, simultaneously, you show clearly your ingrained intellectual dishonesty) that you have not the slightest idea of how to construct an actual meaningful argument. Still, when, in cases like you, one does not, cowardly "overrated" modding is sim
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The discovery agrees with the "woo woo", and you call upon the discovery as scientifically valid to dismiss the religious argument. Great reasoning there.
You say it's "old water", therefore that's objective fact, therefore censorship is okay. That's nonsense. It's "old", therefore it's wrong. That's nonsense too.
It's disagreed with my your imagined majority here, therefore it's "off-topic". Also nonsense.
It is vastly not the most accepting forum. That's why I'm here. Besides reality being ultimately
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that was dumb.
Feel free to note that what I said was what I actually said, rather than you said I said.
And no, you still can't address anything I've said meaningfully, or you would have done it.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, you deserve at least a "+1 Funny" for this, even if it is entirely content-free where it isn't directly wrong. Peer-reviewed evidence has been posted in this very thread. As well as a thorough demonstration that there is no possible way you can know in -any- case whether someone else has evidence, much less your desperation-amplified "never, ever, been a single shred of evidence". You don't have psychic powers. You cannot possibly know this, as a matter of provable epistemology. You -cannot- kn
Re: (Score:2)
I see we have Slashdot's typical systematic "overrated" downvoting of religion posts in lieu of an actual counterargument again.
Don't be shy, mods. You can share it with us, if you have it. You know I'll be asking you about it again much later anyway.
Here's the deal I made with all the "Jews For Jesus" folks who accosted me while commuting back when I was a teenager: "I'm an empiricist. If you can provide me with one, just one, verifiable piece of actual evidence proving the existence of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent 'thing' you call 'god' I will drop everything and join you." I make the same offer to you, Empiric. Are you up to it?
Re: (Score:2)
But here's something [thelancet.com] peer-reviewed for you. [altervista.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You'll have to address the intellectual dishonesty of your own insistence on "evidence proving" first. They aren't remotely equivalent, in theology or science, and you are asking for it specifically because you're confident your self-contradictory request can be successfully goalpost-shifted to "still not proof I'm willing to accept" to whatever arbitrary degree you wish. But here's something [thelancet.com] peer-reviewed for you. [altervista.org]
No intellectual dishonesty here, friend. That's the beauty of having an open mind: when new evidence is presented, I can use that information to expand my understanding of the universe around me. I am completely open to new ideas and understandings of the universe. However, I take empiricism very seriously. As such, for evidence to be valid, it must be identifiable, classifiable, and most of all, when identical methodologies are applied, repeatable.
From my perspective, those goalposts have never, and wi
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, well then most of these claims you may wish to revise based on the peer-reviewed evidence I have provided you, particularly the allusion (Hint? Equivocation? Vague aspersion? I'm not sure what your intent was) that there's something there contradicting the empirical evidence regarding existence we have.
Out of curiosity, how, for the purposes of discussion and meeting your request, would you define these terms, specifically:
"Evidence"
"Proof"
"Evidence proving"
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, well then most of these claims you may wish to revise based on the peer-reviewed evidence I have provided you, particularly the allusion (Hint? Equivocation? Vague aspersion? I'm not sure what your intent was) that there's something there contradicting the empirical evidence regarding existence we have.
Okay, well then most of these claims you may wish to revise based on the peer-reviewed evidence I have provided you, particularly the allusion (Hint? Equivocation? Vague aspersion? I'm not sure what your intent was) that there's something there contradicting the empirical evidence regarding existence we have.
I'm not exactly clear what evidence for the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being your peer-reviewed study provides. Apparently, less than a fifth (18%) of respondents claimed to experience something rather than nothing during a period when they were experiencing a loss of blood flow to the brain. How those experiences were formed, and what their objective significance was, is not addressed at all. Not moving the goalposts here at all. There is absolutely zero data in that study whi
Re: (Score:3)
No, you're perfectly clear on it, you simply choose to lie. If you had an equivalent breakdown of eyewitness reports of a crime, with very high correlation between them and correspondence between the theory of what transpired, you would accept it as evidence without question. I understand you had the foresight to stack the deck that the evidence must specifically requ
Re: (Score:2)
[A lot of rhetorical hand-waving and appeals to authority thankfully removed]
Nope. You're what Winston Churchill called a fanatic: One who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
I hope Azhura Mazda (or whatever fake deity you subscribe to) takes pity on you.
Oh, and have a great evening! Just, please, make it one that doesn't include me.
Re: (Score:2)
So... you've got nothing but a self-contradictory wish/insult. Fair enough.
And, to be clear, I have no interest in including you now or in the future against your choice. Still open to negotiation with your associates, though. Physical reality will probably have some input on that eventually as well.
Re: (Score:2)
So... same question then. Are you wanting evidence, or proof? Bear in mind that giving you proof would be essentially forced conversion. You then have no choice about the issue--it's proven, period. Comply or go to an asylum for denying proven facts.
Some reasons this may intentionally not be commonly available might come to mind.
Still, that's not the question at hand. Do you want evidence, or proof, because they are two different things, and what would your response to each be? I propose you want neit
Re: (Score:2)
I think the difference here is we aren't just talking about Zeus, The Tooth Fairy, or The Big Purple Elephant in the Sky®, we are talking about an entity responsible for reality vs. some sort of accidental or self-establishing reality.
Personally, I find the latter preposterous, to others the former is unnecessary: therefore that entity need not (or more often) must not exist.
To me, the single largest philosophical proof of intentional design is the fact these ideas can and are considered at all; in a pu
Re: (Score:2)
People with near death experiences change their life around afterwards? I am totally willing to accept that this is true for a statistically high percentage of people. It even follows common sense.
I do not see how this has anything to do with there being a God, however.
Also claiming that asking for evidence is "intellectually dishonest" is bizarre. I will agree that theology and science are not equivalent. One of them is provable and the other is philosophical bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps if you chose to view the content more pertinently for what it is, quantified eyewitness accounts of the predictions of religion, you'd lessen the self-generated mental vagueness there to help you help yourself evade clear and obvious conclusions.
Also claiming that asking for evidence is "intellectually dishonest" is bizarre.
If only that had anything to do with what I said. Asking for evidence is fine, and was provided.
Re: (Score:2)
You might consider this strange, but none of the people resurrected in the Bible make any reference at all related to their experiences after death. The closest thing you would find related to this topic is the account of the rich man and Lazarus, who both died and were in Hades, the rich man in torment, and Lazarus in Abraham's bosom. The rich man wanted to send a message to his relatives so that they would not end up in torment like him and was told, they have Moses and the prophets (i.e., they were not g
Re: (Score:2)
So, you cite the bible directly providing experience and knowledge derived after death, cite nothing denying NDE's as a means of religious experience and knowledge, and then conclude the bible denies NDE's as a means of religious experience and knowledge?
I think you'll need to... elaborate.
But yes, as Clement of Alexandria said, "Not all true things are to be said to all men". At least not directly.
Re: (Score:2)
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
Age of Preceding Supernova (Score:5, Interesting)
The heavy elements on our planet and in your body were creation via fusion in another star, which has already long since died, exploded, and been recycled.
We can do better than that. Based on the current ratio of Uranium-235 and 238 which are created in roughly equal quantities by a supernova we can date the super nova preceding the solar system to about 6 billion years ago. It's also interesting to note that had intelligent life evolved a billion or more years earlier than it did that the uranium ore we dig out of the ground would be weapon's grade without any complex enrichment process required. So there might be a limit on intelligent life evolving too soon after the formation of a planet.
Age of Preceding Supernova: Older than dirt (haha) (Score:2)
Consequently, the the mean longevity of a civilization on an 'old' world would be ever so slightly increased in Drake's equati
Re: (Score:2)
weapons grade uranium is 90% U-235, natural uranium is 0.7% U-235 -- No, it was not weapons grade a billion years ago, or ever if it was 50% U-235 at formation. Reactor grade is 3-4% U-235, which would exists in natural ores 1.5 billion year ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because we've blown ourselves up.
No we have not but the reason for that is that enriching uranium ore to the point where you can make a bomb from it is extremely hard to do. It requires a major facility to perform isotope separation and that typically requires a government with a lot of resources. This is why terrorists do not possess nuclear weapons. If all they had to do was dig uranium ore out of the ground and refine it to pure uranium we would have many nuclear armed terrorist groups and the world would be a very different, and likel
Re: (Score:2)
This is why terrorists do not possess nuclear weapons.
If it was easy to make weapon grade uranium from ore we would control access to the ore. As it is, we control access to the enriching technology and final product.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was easy to make weapon grade uranium from ore we would control access to the ore. As it is, we control access to the enriching technology and final product.
No, "we" would try and fail hard to control access to the ore.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I never said the Sun was a first generation star. I said it was a Population I star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity#Population_I_stars)
Huge difference.
From Wikipedia:
Population I, or metal-rich stars, are young stars with the highest metallicity out of all three populations. The Earth's Sun is an example of a metal-rich star. These are common in the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy.
Population II, or metal-poor stars, are those with relatively little metal.
Population III, or metal-free stars, a
Re: (Score:2)
Though I don't really agree with the notion on a "general principle" level, the notion that the properties of observables from which we infer material attributes, and the properties from which we infer time sequences, are not separable, is an interesting viewpoint to me.
From that perspective, if one were to create something in a manner not following typical physical causality, it would have to have a structure "appearing to have had time pass" in order to be viable and stable per physical laws.
Although it p
Re: (Score:2)
Could you rephrase that?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Any physical object can suddenly "come into existence" at any time, according to physics, though very improbably (an improbability one might otherwise call a "miracle").
No theological assumptions required for this to be true at all. Nothing but established QM physics is needed.
Whether such phenomena are "truly random" or not (a bit of a paradox for a supposedly generally-deterministic physics), or, say, a perfect back-door to controlling all of physical reality that an insightful engineer might put
Re: (Score:2)
It's certainly possible for a sperm whale and a bowl of petunias to both come into existence and immediately begin a freefall to earth, the former of which has just enough time for an existential crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
So now it's time for you to consider the overall veracity and value of the wider presentation around that, and harmoniousness with overall existence as you perceive it to be.
I recommend bringing a towel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't understand false statements like yours as if there was something true there to understand. Your position, being false, is what's imaginary.
I do, however, understand what a Bare Assertion fallacy is, particularly when aided by your perfect example of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Since this seems to be an honest inquiry, I'll attempt to elaborate a bit.
Let's substitute for "the bible", say, Orwell's "Animal Farm". While I can agree or disagree with the assertions "the part about the farmer can be taken literally" or "the part about the talking animal is allegorical", atheism for me by analogy rejects the totality of the information conveyed in the work, for which the political and ethical views conveyed are clearly the most important attribute. Atheism for me does the equivalent o
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't *all* water in the solar system be older than the Sun?
That was my first reading of it as well... a big "Duh!".
But upon reflection, I realize they aren't saying that the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that make up the water are older than the sun, but that some of it has been combined as 'water', since before the Sun, and they've found samples of some. And that actually *IS* interesting and potentially scientifically significant.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you tell? Do molecular bonds have rings, like trees?
Are not atoms fungible?
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA. It talks about exactly this.
Re: (Score:2)
The bible missed a bit:
4) And God said, let the isotope ratio of all water herein be specifically crafted to appear as if it's much older than 4000 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Missed that an a fuckton of other stuff. OTOH, all scientific stuff can be discovered from the inside, so why should a sacred text bother. To become more believable? But any cult can be based on scientific facts, and it probably has done since some clever guy figured out the eclipses and wore a cape and told people to do X so that the sun might return. And, whatever the sacred text proclaim in the domain of a god remains unprovable, a god intervening in the universe is indistinguishable from a sufficiently
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: The bible is the work of humans. Trying to redefine terms until they fit knowledge that didn't exist at the time of writing doesn't make it more correct. It's still wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Please describe what an earth without form and void is supposed to mean. He created a void?????
Well, of course, that's not actually what Genesis said. What Genesis said was that the earth was tohu v' bohu. ( -- let's see how /. does with Hebrew). So, what you're really asking is, what does it mean for the Earth to be bohu? He created a bohu? (Or maybe bohu was already there?)
My personal explanation, the author went with bohu simply because it was a good rhyme with tohu. When you're a poet, sometimes you just have to go with the easy rhyme.
Re: (Score:2)
if language was invented by poets, how the fuck do they explain "orange" and "vagina"??
Re: (Score:2)
dust cloud surrounded by vacuum? I mean, gravity would eventually coalesce that into a planet. But void in this sense would likely mean "empty." Devoid of life.
Re: (Score:2)
The original author is talking about water, not hydrogen, because:
“The finding ... makes it quite hard for these regions in the disk to synthesize any new molecules. This was an 'aha' moment for us -- without any new water creation the only place these ices could have come from was the chemically rich interstellar gas out of which the solar system formed originally,” Cleeves wrote in an email to Discovery News.
“It's remarkable that these ices survived the entire process of stellar birth,” she added.
(Emphasis mine)
shared wonder at the bigness and oldness of it all (Score:2, Insightful)
The key part: "darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." I'm the last person to push theology, and not remotely christian, but that's... poetically pretty.
Yes, the waters were here long before us, before the earth, before (our) star. I don't have to agree with anyone's religious tales to appreciate and share a sense of wonder at the bigness and oldness of it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Ancient man felt insignificant and believed gods created the earth. Science has an explanation for how the universe came into being but not from where what made it came from or what over 90% of it is. As a Christian, I say God. But keep trying guys, everything you say makes sense and I await your next discovery. However celestial objects came into being, the photos are awesome.
I to love the poetry of the Bible.
Ancient Astronaut Theorists believe that (Score:2)
*every* *damn* *thing* can be traced back to alien visitors. Because puny humans could never have accomplished anything without them.
They never answer my question of who setup the ancient astronauts? If they could evolve to their functional status as spacefaring beings, couldn't humans (eventually)? Otherwise, is it ancient astronauts all the way down.
My wife cannot seem to walk away from those shows! Even though she doesn't believe them.
Re: (Score:2)
"Alien origin" means "from someplace other than Earth". Not, "little green men".
Re: (Score:2)
Good grief, the most significant point gets over-run by religionists. But seriously, WHERE, exactly, did this water exist in the time BEFORE the sun existed???
In interstellar space and the stellar nebula where our sun formed.