Continue the debate in here

Atmospheres: A Narrow Zone for Life by David F. Coppedge*

One of earth's greatest assets is its life-supporting atmosphere. Only eight other bodies in the solar system are enshrouded in gas to a significant degree.1 Atmospheres can produce dramatic effects: winds, clouds, and precipitation. Since they share a boundary with space, where the solar wind dominates, atmospheres can provide information for evaluating the plausibility of theories about planets' age and habitability.

Mercury’s atmosphere was thought to be long gone, but the MESSENGER spacecraft showed that a slight amount of gas remains. Space.com reported that magnetic vortices reach the surface where the solar wind can blast away volatiles from surface rocks by a process called sputtering.2 The spacecraft also showed extensive volcanism, some of it recent, that may have supplied volatiles to its tenuous atmosphere. These volatiles (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) were not thought to exist in the inner planets. Nature proposed that Mercury formed farther out and then migrated inward.3 Even so, it seems implausible that an atmosphere so near the sun has been in steady state for billions of years.

Most of Mars' early atmosphere is thought to have been eroded by the solar wind because the planet's weak magnetic field provides little protection. Earth's atmosphere feels the solar erosion, too, but on a much slower scale, because its magnetic field is much stronger. The evolutionary view of the age of earth's atmosphere requires two ad hoc rescuing devices: migration inward after formation in volatile-rich regions, then special delivery of atmospheric volatiles by impacts. Comets have long been suggested as sources for earth's oceans, but the differing hydrogen-deuterium ratios cast doubt on that hypothesis.

Venus has a thick atmosphere but almost no global magnetic field. Its volcanoes are not thought to be active. Why does it have so much gas left, if Mars--farther from the sun by 77 million miles--has lost much of its own? The lack of a thick atmosphere and global magnetic field very likely renders Mars sterile. Astrobiology Magazine reported on experiments with microbes exposed to Mars-like conditions. The UV radiation is devastating; there is no escape from it, even in salt crystals, scientists found. In addition, NASA scientist Andrew Schuerger listed 13 separate factors on Mars that could kill earth microbes.4

A planet's atmosphere is tied to its geology. The interplay of tidal interactions can produce volcanoes that release volatiles from the interior. Scientists are now realizing that a delicate balance is required.5 A dynamic crust is vital to an atmosphere's stability, but too much tidal activity (like on Jupiter's moon Io) can smother any incipient life. This means a "tidal habitable zone" and a "UV habitable zone" must constrain the "habitable zone" where temperatures permit liquid water. The zone around red dwarf stars (the most numerous) would increase tidal activity. Most likely, the three habitable zones do not coincide and life would not be possible around the majority of stars.

Atmospheres are being found to be too dynamic to endure for billions of years. In addition, the balance of conditions necessary for life seems more delicate with each new discovery. Comparative planetology shows that the factors governing atmospheres can vary widely. The evidence points to a young solar system with one planet, situated in a narrow habitable zone, with the right geology and atmosphere for life. If the planet is young, life could not have evolved. Design remains, therefore, the simplest and most elegant explanation.

bennett_david wrote:

You just copy and paste from AIG and other Xian sites.

That's not entirely true. I mentioned the 2 examples of God answering prayer proving He exists and also there are those questions which you still haven't bothered to answer. It was through reading and thinking for myself that I came up with those questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIm2H0ksawg

4. The Most Unnatural of Selections

In the mid-1800s pollution from factories in Britain was darkening trees by killing the lichen, and scientists also noted a decline in the ratio between lighter-colored peppered moths and darker varieties.

It was hypothesized that the lighter moths were easier to spot and thus were eaten by more birds. Here was evolution in action. Bernard Kettlewell sat in the woods and watched to see whether birds preferred the lighter version to darker, and he reported that indeed they were twice as likely to eat the lighter moths.

Three problems, though: (1) Kettlewell was responsible for nailing dead moths to the trees for the birds to feed on, (2) peppered moths rarely alight on tree trunks, and (3) birds don’t normally feed on months moths that are on the side of trees. Even after scientists were informed of these inconsistencies, many still clung to the validity of the experiment, perhaps because they wanted to believe it as the canonical example of observed natural selection.

The video claimed that every aspect of evolution has been observed. Is there fossil evidence to back all this up?

The video also said there are over 240000 peer reviewed articles. Are
any of those written by Christians or people who belive in God?

Also remember that what looks like evolution isn't always evolution, for example in the case of the Peppered moth:

The video claimed that every aspect of evolution has been observed. Is there fossil evidence to back all this up?

Some of it was shown in the video (4:32, 5:32, 7:46)! Also read my previous posts, as I have provided plenty. Look for Archaeopteryx!

Ken Miller! And I'm sure Francis Collins wrote a few papers in his time!

Well retard, maybe if you knew enough about evolution you would know that although the experiment was not perfect, as Kettlewell released the moths during the day and not at night (when moths are usually active), the observation showed conclusively that industrial pollution was a factor in the difference in predation between colour varieties.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg

In regard to Archaeopteryx, well we all know the London Archaeopteryx specimen was forged.

As I thought, you can believe in God and not be a retard.

Dawkins just talked about animals that are similar. If evolution was
true then surely there should be fossils showing evolution at every
stage (animal with shorts leg, more fossils showing similar animal with
longer legs, another animal with even longer legs proving that the legs
evolved to be longer overtime).

In regard to the moths being released during the day you might want to read this article:

http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/kettlewells-experiments

They
where placed onto trunks at dawn, allowed to take up their own resting
places and some even stayed out for two nights before being captured.
Basically Kettlewell's experiments where meant to be a great example of
evolution in action, but they wheren't.

Also Dawkins didn't explain why Whales still exist.

If one animal evolves into another I would expect the previous version to die out.

If we evolved from monkey like creatures then surely some of them
should still exist like the Whales that exist even though Hippos
evolved from them. Looks like Dawkins grouped similar animals together
and said this one became that one.

First of all where is your source? Secondly, there is more than one specimen!

Yeah you can, because these christians also accept the evidence for evolution. Are they NOT christian because they accept evolution?

The fact that the moths changed means it did happen!

You are a fucking retard! You do not even know what evolution is or how it works. The changes that occur in evolution are at the gene level. One animal does not give birth to a completely new species, simply an animal with slight changes in their genes. Which may result in a slightly longer neck, or in the case of the moths, darker wings!

DID YOU WATCH ALL THE VIDEOS IN THE SERIES!

If changes are at the gene level then the process for evolution would
be very slow (from Whale to Hippo) so you would think there would be
plenty of fossils to show the process at each stage. Are there? If it
took millions of years to go from whale to Hippo then there would be
more chance for the fossils to form in the same way that saying the
Earth is old (millions of years) rather than young gives evolution a
higher chance of happening even though it’s highly improbable.

They evolved from a common ancestor!

Whether or not you THINK there should be more fossils means nothing. The fossil we have are all we have found, because not everything fossilises.

Even if no fossils existed, DNA provides plenty of evidence for evolution.