Great Questions to ask creationists...

[Metalgod]

Where did hydrogen come from?

From the Big Bang.
As I understand it, things were extremely lively after the BB. And by that I mean individual protons, neutrons and electrons moved about a great deal, meaning it was freaking hot. As it cooled down, they would settle into matter. Hydrogen, being the lightest element in the Universe, would tend to form much more frequently than any other element, which is why 75% of the known atoms in the Universe are Hydrogen.



But what has that got to do with the question "where did all the water come from"?

Thank you. Would it be fair of me to say that you and Vivre do not really know where hydrogen came from? And that Vivre would like to ridicule creationists for their answer to where global flood waters could have come from? Even though Vivre doesnt really know where water comes from?

Maybe?

Yes!

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Would it be fair of me to say that you and Vivre do not really know where hydrogen came from?

:facepalm:

How can you say this when Inferno told you where it came from?

Inferno[/url]"]From the Big Bang.

Inferno then went on to explain how it came about. Did you even take the time to read Inferno’s post?

Perhaps you have a case when talking about Vivre, but I doubt that as well after conversing with her on the chat. Vivre is not as ignorant as you are.

And that Vivre would like to ridicule creationists for their answer to where global flood waters could have come from? Even though Vivre doesnt really know where water comes from?

Maybe?

Yes!

Your assumption that Vivre does not know where water comes from is a non sequitur to her question. This was also already pointed out by Inferno. Apparently, you did not take the time to read Inferno’s post. You must have been far to busy trying to come up with a snarky retort ([sarcasm]wonderfully done by the way[/sarcasm]).

 

[Inferno]

Thank you, he_who_is_nobody.

I too am fairly confused. Didn't I answer your question adequately, Metalgod? I can also give you the longer answer, meaning the complete reaction, if you really want to. I didn't for two reasons:
1) That particular field isn't my personal strength, so I would be copy-pasting from somewhere without really understanding it. I don't like that.
2) You wouldn't have understood it anyway, so what's the point?

If you're really interested though, a friend of mine is an astrophysicist. Her speciality is planetary formation, but I'm sure she can point me in the right direction.

As for your question though, my answer was more than satisfactory. Can you come even close with regards to "the flood"?

 

[australopithecus]

Thank you. Would it be fair of me to say that you and Vivre do not really know where hydrogen came from? And that Vivre would like to ridicule creationists for their answer to where global flood waters could have come from? Even though Vivre doesnt really know where water comes from? Maybe? Yes!

As pointed out, Inferno explained quite well where hydrogen comes from. Throw in some nucleosynthesis and you get oxygen, and then water. Seeing as water is the most common compound in the universe, it's not exactly a mystery.

If ignoring points so you can build straw men is going to be a new trend for you, I suggest you find another forum to bore.

 

[malicious_bloke]

Thank you. Would it be fair of me to say that you and Vivre do not really know where hydrogen came from? And that Vivre would like to ridicule creationists for their answer to where global flood waters could have come from? Even though Vivre doesnt really know where water comes from?

The question of where the water for the mythical flood came from still stands.

As it is every creationist assertion on the matter i've ever come across produces nothing but a planet sterilised with superheated steam, including that little wooden boat with all the animals on it.

And that's before we even get started on the garden of eden hidden in perpetual darkness by the mass of water circling the earth before the flood.

But hey, who needs to think like that when we can just invoke magic. Maybe God made water perfectly translucent before the flood, water's opacity today is a product of SIN!

 

[Vivre]

Thanks to you Inferno and he_who_is_nobody

for your heads up and explanations

I was even surprised that Inferno answered the question to the origin of hydrogen as this isn't the intention of the thread as far as I understand it. Nonetheless it's nice to have a quick recollection on it.

Above that I appreciate to learn the term 'non sequitur' as I do lack the whole terminology around fallacies. And due to the previous discussion flow I'd like to ask how is it called if the content of a statement is redefined into a new one to serve as basis for a new untenable imputation. (It's not aspersions I'm looking for but how this tactic is classified.)

And besides all that, I wouldn't ask for the orgin of something that has none and is only made up of stuff. :mrgreen:

It's a pity this german saying won't swing in english:

Wirst Du des Lebens nicht mehr froh,
stürze Dich in H2O.
(If you can't get happy on life, throw yourself into H2O.)

 

[Metalgod]

It is a fact that none of you know where hydrogen came from. You are only able to provide a someones "best guess", an inference drawn mostly from an extremely limited amount of observational data.

 

[Metalgod]

Thank you. Would it be fair of me to say that you and Vivre do not really know where hydrogen came from? And that Vivre would like to ridicule creationists for their answer to where global flood waters could have come from? Even though Vivre doesnt really know where water comes from?

The question of where the water for the mythical flood came from still stands.

But hey, who needs to think like that when we can just invoke magic. Maybe God made water perfectly translucent before the flood, water's opacity today is a product of SIN!

I am not really smart enough to understand most of the science used in debates about the possibility of a global flood.

 

[Darkprophet232]

I am not really smart enough to understand most of the science used in debates about the possibility of a global flood.

So then why are you instigating one?

 

[Inferno]

It is a fact that none of you know where hydrogen came from. You are only able to provide a someones "best guess", an inference drawn mostly from an extremely limited amount of observational data.

Ah, you're going down the road "we can't really know anything". Good debate/conversation starter. Might as well stop right there and bury your head in the sand.

 

[australopithecus]

It is a fact that none of you know where hydrogen came from. You are only able to provide a someones "best guess", an inference drawn mostly from an extremely limited amount of observational data.

It's not a best guess based on limit data. It's an accurate description of physical reality.

The constituent building blocks of hydrogen atoms readily form out of high energy density states. This has been experimentally observed for decades. Limited my arse. That you know shit all about physics changes nothing. Your continued straw man is noted, perhaps when you're ready to admit you're talking shit we can all move on.

 

[malicious_bloke]

I am not really smart enough to understand most of the science used in debates about the possibility of a global flood.

Really?

The effects of frictional heating of a mythical subterranean body of water being suddenly displaced by the earth's crust/a mythical body of water suddenly falling from orbit is a matter of basic physics, it should be easily covered by any highschool physics curriculum.

It also happens to be a much simpler discussion than "where did all the different types of matter in the universe come from".

If you want to duck out of answering questions on basic arithmetic you probably shouldn't try and validate it by claiming to have stumped people by asking specious nonsense about calculus.

 

[Frenger]

Am I understanding this current detour correctly? Because Vivre asks (a hypothetical creationist) where did the flood water come from, Metalgod is showing that because Vivre doesn't know where Hydrogen came from, even though she does, along with everyone else who has explained where it comes from, that because she "doesn't know where it came from, the global flood, as described in the Bible could be, but isn't not untrue?

Is that about right?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Am I understanding this current detour correctly? Because Vivre asks (a hypothetical creationist) where did the flood water come from, Metalgod is showing that because Vivre doesn't know where Hydrogen came from, even though she does, along with everyone else who has explained where it comes from, that because she "doesn't know where it came from, the global flood, as described in the Bible could be, but isn't not untrue?

Is that about right?

That is correct to the best of my understanding of this detour.

 

[Frenger]

Cool.

Well, actually Metalgod, Vivre's question is a good one, as is stated here on Rational Wiki.

Since the volume of land is small compared to the total volume of water that would be required for such a flood (oceans cover 71% of the Earth's surface and the average height of land is only about 800 metres), an easy calculation shows the amount of water needed to achieve this would be at least 4.5 billion cubic kilometres. The current volume of the Earth's oceans combined is estimated at only 1.3 billion cubic kilometres. This raises the question of where did that much water come from, and more importantly, where did it all go?

You may say [insert predicably nonsensical and unwitty retort here] but before you do, you should read the following point first.
[showmore=Atmosphere fail]The conventional flood story states that the flood waters came from rain that lasted 40 days and 40 nights.Rain appears when the air can no longer support water in the vapor phase and it becomes saturated. Normally, the atmosphere is on the brink of saturation, and the variations in temperature and pressure caused by weather fronts are capable of altering the threshold at which precipitation will form quite easily. What about the amount of water vapor suspended in air needed for the 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water needed for the global flood? The water vapor currently in the air is only around 2-3% on average, with a maximum of 4% limited by temperature and pressure.The change in atmospheric conditions required to support enough vapor for 112 million cubic kilometers of rain per day - about 120,000 times more than the current daily rainfall worldwide - would have rendered the air unbreathable.

Indeed, the atmosphere really couldn't sustain that much water even under the most extreme temperature and pressure conditions the planet can produce. If the conditions were right for that much water to be in the atmosphere, humans and virtually every other animal would have drowned through the simple act of breathing, as well as turning the earth into the equivalent of a pressure cooker with atmospheric pressure at nearly a thousand psi instead of the standard 14.7 or so that we have today[/showmore]

Sauce

So it isn't just a case of "where did the water come from", it's also how did the atmosphere sustain all that water without killing Noah and all his other raft chums? Some poorly attempted humour and batting away won't answer these points, just so you know.

 

[Vivre]

Cool.

... the Sauce was delightful

 

[Rumraket]

It is a fact that none of you know where hydrogen came from. You are only able to provide a someones "best guess", an inference drawn mostly from an extremely limited amount of observational data.

This is hilarious coming from the guy who believes that a supernatural immortal, perfectly good mind (which loves him) that exists in the absense of a physical brain, outside of space and time who has the power to wish entire universes into existence out of absolute philosophical nothing, unobserved of course, also believes same said entity magically and supernaturally made itself into a material human being of flesh and blood approximately 2000 years ago, died fully upon being killed, stayed fully and bodily dead for 2 or 3 days, then magically and supernaturally resurrected itself into being completely alive and descended magically and supernaturally into an alternative spritual realm called heaven where there is no suffering or evil, which noone has credibly seen.

And all this you believe because of no data at all, you infer it from your emotional reactions to stories you read in an old book.

PLEASE don't talk to us about unsubstantiated inferences.

 

[Metalgod]

Ah, you're going down the road "we can't really know anything".

Certainly not.

But it would take some of the sting away from being ridiculed for not knowing where global flood waters came from if I can demonstrate that the people who would ridicule me dont really even know where any water/matter/energy came from.

I suspect when I ask australopithecus where energy came from he will say it came from some other universe.

 

[Metalgod]

It's not a best guess based on limit data. It's an accurate description of physical reality.

The constituent building blocks of hydrogen atoms readily form out of high energy density states. This has been experimentally observed for decades. Limited my arse. That you know shit all about physics changes nothing. Your continued straw man is noted, perhaps when you're ready to admit you're talking shit we can all move on.

Where did energy come from?

 

[Inferno]

Ah, you're going down the road "we can't really know anything".

Certainly not.

But it would take some of the sting away from being ridiculed for not knowing where global flood waters came from if I can demonstrate that the people who would ridicule me dont really even know where any water/matter/energy came from.

I suspect when I ask australopithecus where energy came from he will say it came from some other universe.

But I already answered you. Will you accept that we know the origin of both Hydrogen and Oxygen and therefore also of Water?

The question of where matter and energy came from is entirely unrelated to what we're talking about and your analogy fails on at least one count:
You're trying to demonstrate something that is both opposed to physical law and is not proved to ever have happened, indeed has been proved to never have happened.
The existence of both matter and energy are obviously demonstrable. Where they came from may be a complete mystery, but it would take not a piece of ridicule away from you.

To answer your question though, there are a number of theories that are currently being tested. One of them is Lawrence Krauss' pet hypothesis "A Universe From Nothing".