Um. . .no, sorry. Wadis are dried up river beds.
I meant Ergs
Obviously not a riverbed. No rock to be seen. Just thousands of square miles of sand.
Extremely violent rainstorms are a rare but very real occurrence in the Sahara, as they are in many deserts around the world, and can easily form such “dry rivers”. Not enough exposed stone to wear down? Clearly your grasp of the geography of the Sahara desert is a little wanting, Obviously most of the rock has already been worn away at the surface, but remnants of massive rock formations still exist throughout the desert such as the Ahaggar Mountains, the Ayar of Niger, and the Tibesti Mountains. Furthermore, the southward expansion of the Sahara is in a large part driven by wind such as the Harmattan, a west African trade wind that can blow sand from the Sahara as far south as the equator. This is a little unfair since I’ve actually been to the Sahara, but you kind of walked yourself into this one.
Furthermore, by bringing in wadis you are now not only claiming that solar radiation directly creates “dust” but also sand and gravel. All this despite the fact that you can get on a plane, go to Africa, and watch wind and water create all these same materials. Can I go to those same deserts and observe solar radiation creating the same materials at a faster rate? No? I wonder why that is?
Perhaps that is because many of the more destructive radiations are blocked by the combination of the Ozone and the earths's magnetic field.
Nope, don’t see it. Nor do I see why radiation would be producing dust at such a fantastic rate as opposed to impacts. You are welcome to provide some actual evidence at your leisure.
You have huge smooth surfaces (you can see them with your own eyes) which still have significant dust. You have giant calderas with walls that are crumbling even though there is no weather on the moon.
Obviously volcanic activity on a near-molten earth would far exceed the output of a single modern day volcano.
"Obviously." You are assuming facts not in evidence. The stike that you are talking about would expose the very core of the planet. This would be unlike any volcano we have, releasing no gas and relieving so much volcanic pressure to insure that there would be very little, if any volcanic pressure.
There wouldn’t need to be anything left to eventually form another atmosphere, as long as gases migrated to the surface gravity would hold them near the surface eventually building an atmosphere.
The loss of the ozone layer alone would insure the cook off of any water. The disruption of the orbit and rotation and the lessening of the magnetic field would make it highly unlikely that we would ever see a substantial atmosphere. Look at Mars, It's vulcanism far exceed ours, but the lithosphere is much poorer in oxygen.
That certainly seems to be what you are talking about, but in reality the giant impact hypothesis begins by saying that the moon exists, that it has some very similar isotopes to earth, and that it looks like it could have been formed from the same material used to form earth. The development of the second atmosphere is based on a different set of facts, some of which were provided along with research about others, and just so happens to fit together nicely. Most likely because they are both pretty accurate models.
Again, the connection is that the model of the origin of the moon fuels the model of the formation of the atmosphere.
Again, if this occurred the energy released would surely have resulted in a molten earth, in which case iron is not going to deny physics en masse and migrate to the surface. Why do you think earth has an iron core in the first place? Here’s a hint: gravity.
Well, since gravity has to do with mass not weight, I would say that is it because of the inertia caused by the spinning of the earth.
No I’m not,
current models have ejected material coming together in possibly as little as ten years.
I love this....Ten years!
"A giant impact would lead to a ring of very hot debris in orbit around the young Earth. Calculations indicate that the Moon could have formed from that debris in ten years or less! This implies that the Moon would have formed very hot, possibly entirely molten. This scorching initial state is consistent with the idea that the Moon was surrounded by an ocean of magma when it formed. The magma ocean idea has been a central tenet of lunar science for decades, and recent data from the Clementine mission to the Moon finally proved it, as described in "Moonbeams and Elements," an October, 1997 PSRD article. The Moon probably continued to accrete material to it, including some objects up to about half its size. These big impacts could maintain a magma ocean, and scramble any crust that formed. It could also add rock with a composition different from the rest of the Moon, accounting for some unexplained features of the lunar interior. The existence of a magma ocean on the Moon is also prime evidence against the Moon forming by capture. Calculations show that if the Moon were captured, the process would not heat the Moon very much, certainly not so much that it would be mostly molten.”
Solar System Exploration: Science & Technology: Science Features: Origin of the Earth and Moon
I guess that it’s a bum deal that the experimental evidence disagrees with you then. Honestly I don’t know what else to say seeing as there is substantial evidence showing a functional-based preference for homochirality. You are more than welcome to continue to expound on why you think it shouldn’t have happened, but there seem to be some very good explanations on why it happened as it did that you’re ignoring.
I think you are drinking deeply of that kool-aid.
"But scientists who ought to know,
Assure us that it must be so...
Oh! Let us never doubt
What nobody is sure about."
An large-scale extinction event.
Evolution is the science of biological change over time. The large-scale extinction event isn't evolution. The extinct species didn't change, they died. Show me one example of change from complex to simple according to evolution. The a priori of increasing complexity is a driving force of macro-evolution.
Again, this is Lamarckism, not evolution. Adaptation is driven by purely random variation, the adaptations themselves do not occur as a response to an organism’s environment.
I am not proposing that the adaptation occured because of the environmental change. I am proposing that the adaptation of amphibian to fish would be more likely to survive that the change from amphibian to reptile.
Furthermore, you are grossly over-simplifying things to say that amphibians that remain in the water their whole lives will always out-reproduce amphibians that move from water to land. In some environments, amphibians that remain in the water their whole lives might be better adapted to survive, but in other environments it is advantageous to move, breathe, and hunt on land. This is probably why some amphibians are adapted to live almost exclusively in water, such as the Texas Blind Salamander which sports distinctive red gills, while other amphibians are adapted to live most of their lives on dry land.
Since the first generation of amphibian would lay there eggs in the water and the evolved generation of reptile babies would then drown in the water, I do think it is more likely. You responded exactly the way you had to, by proposing the chance occurance of both the evolutionary leap and the environmental accidence.
Our ability to develop and use technology is a direct result of our brains, which are an adaptation.
Now you jump into the hot water. We survived by developing technology. So our inability to adapt to the environment physiologically was fortuitously joined to the evolution of a techno-savy brain.
If the water is in the form of hydroxl molecules trapped within crystallized rocks I don’t see a problem.
First, the recent find is of frozen water in the surface. Second, Hydoxyl is not water. It has one oxygen and one hydrogen and is a free radical combining with just about anything.
Well that’s simply untrue. On the subject of things like the formation of the moon, homochirality, and weathering I don’t use the Bible because the Bible doesn’t say anything about them; it is a book devoted to laying out the relationship between man and his Creator, not a science book. . .which is kind of the whole point of this conversations.
Yet through all this process from the formation of the moon to the reformation of the atmosphere to abiogesis to macroevolution, not once in your thinking does God have a role. It is unguided and by chance and probability. If the story of creation is a story of God's relationship with man, where is God in your view of the origin of the universe?
Additionally, I have stated on numerous occasions that I believe in the resurrection, which as far as miracles go is kind of a big deal. Feel free to review the thread if you need to. Thanks.
Lurker