<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_01_231246</id>
	<title>Comets Probably Seeded Earth's Nitrogen Atmosphere</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1246463880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://arxivblog.technologyreview.com/" rel="nofollow">KentuckyFC</a> writes <i>"One of the biggest puzzles of astrobiology is the origin of the Earth's oceans and atmosphere. One favored theory is that our water is the leftovers from a bombardment of comets early in Earth's history. But the ratio of hydrogen and deuterium in the oceans doesn't match the ratio in the four comets measured so far (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley's\_Comet">Halley's</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet\_Hyakutake">Hyakutake</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet\_Hale-Bopp">Hale-Bopp</a> and <a href="http://cometography.com/lcomets/2002t7.html">C/2002 T7 LINEAR</a>). Now a new analysis of the ratio of nitrogen-14 and 15 isotopes in these comets and on Earth places new limits on how much of our environment could have come from comets. On the one hand, the astronomers who did the work say that no more than a few percent of Earth's water could have come from comets. But on the other, they say that <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23784/">the ratio of nitrogen isotopes in these comets almost exactly matches the ratio in Earth's atmosphere</a>. That suggests that while Earth's oceans must have come from somewhere else, Earth's early atmosphere was probably seeded by comets."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>KentuckyFC writes " One of the biggest puzzles of astrobiology is the origin of the Earth 's oceans and atmosphere .
One favored theory is that our water is the leftovers from a bombardment of comets early in Earth 's history .
But the ratio of hydrogen and deuterium in the oceans does n't match the ratio in the four comets measured so far ( Halley 's , Hyakutake , Hale-Bopp and C/2002 T7 LINEAR ) .
Now a new analysis of the ratio of nitrogen-14 and 15 isotopes in these comets and on Earth places new limits on how much of our environment could have come from comets .
On the one hand , the astronomers who did the work say that no more than a few percent of Earth 's water could have come from comets .
But on the other , they say that the ratio of nitrogen isotopes in these comets almost exactly matches the ratio in Earth 's atmosphere .
That suggests that while Earth 's oceans must have come from somewhere else , Earth 's early atmosphere was probably seeded by comets .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KentuckyFC writes "One of the biggest puzzles of astrobiology is the origin of the Earth's oceans and atmosphere.
One favored theory is that our water is the leftovers from a bombardment of comets early in Earth's history.
But the ratio of hydrogen and deuterium in the oceans doesn't match the ratio in the four comets measured so far (Halley's, Hyakutake, Hale-Bopp and C/2002 T7 LINEAR).
Now a new analysis of the ratio of nitrogen-14 and 15 isotopes in these comets and on Earth places new limits on how much of our environment could have come from comets.
On the one hand, the astronomers who did the work say that no more than a few percent of Earth's water could have come from comets.
But on the other, they say that the ratio of nitrogen isotopes in these comets almost exactly matches the ratio in Earth's atmosphere.
That suggests that while Earth's oceans must have come from somewhere else, Earth's early atmosphere was probably seeded by comets.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554267</id>
	<title>Re:But there's soooo much water on (and in) Earth.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246474200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was under the impression that the Earth's water precipitated out of the original accretion disc as the early earth cooled. That is, everything accreted, and then as the molten rock and surrounding gases cooled to form a sold surface, the water that became the Earth's oceans and such also cooled and condensed, and basically rained down on the planet over time.</p><p>Has there been some reason to doubt this? i.e. evidence that refutes this hypothesis?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that the Earth 's water precipitated out of the original accretion disc as the early earth cooled .
That is , everything accreted , and then as the molten rock and surrounding gases cooled to form a sold surface , the water that became the Earth 's oceans and such also cooled and condensed , and basically rained down on the planet over time.Has there been some reason to doubt this ?
i.e. evidence that refutes this hypothesis ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that the Earth's water precipitated out of the original accretion disc as the early earth cooled.
That is, everything accreted, and then as the molten rock and surrounding gases cooled to form a sold surface, the water that became the Earth's oceans and such also cooled and condensed, and basically rained down on the planet over time.Has there been some reason to doubt this?
i.e. evidence that refutes this hypothesis?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553773</id>
	<title>Tunguska Clouds an Indication?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246467600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Recently I <a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/1029231/Shuttle-Launch-Clouds-Put-Tunguska-Event-as-Comet?art\_pos=1" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">submitted a story</a> [slashdot.org] that's probably not going to be published that claims:<p><div class="quote"><p>Space.com brings word of a team using new evidence is suggesting that <a href="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090629-tunguska-comet.html" title="space.com" rel="nofollow">the mysterious 1908 event in Tunguska was a comet</a> [space.com] despite a team two years ago <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/12/19/0144235.shtml" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">arguing it was an asteroid</a> [slashdot.org].  The comet theory does explain the odd phenomenon of the night skies being lit up for several nights following the event all across Europe--about 3,000 miles away.  Researchers believe this points to a comet because when the space shuttles launched today pass through the atmosphere they cause or improve the formation of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent\_clouds" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">noctilucent clouds</a> [wikipedia.org].  These clouds are so high up (55 miles) they are only made of ice particles and they are only visible at night which gives researchers reason to draw the conclusion that the 300 metric tons of water vapor that the shuttle pumps into the Earth's thermosphere must likely indicate that the thing that hit was loaded with water or ice.  This would make it a comet and not an asteroid.  This--of course--raises new upper-atmosphere physics problems for the Tunguska event but explains the strange phenomenon over the skies of the world following it.  You may remember <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/27/1736231" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">analysis of Lake Cheko last year</a> [slashdot.org] in an effort to better understand what happened.</p></div><p>Well, if every comet that hit earth dropped off a little bit of water--even in the form of noctilucent clouds<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it'd take a while but is it really so far fetch to think that ultimately all our water and atmosphere are extra-terrestrial?  Probably unlikely but over a long enough time, who knows?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently I submitted a story [ slashdot.org ] that 's probably not going to be published that claims : Space.com brings word of a team using new evidence is suggesting that the mysterious 1908 event in Tunguska was a comet [ space.com ] despite a team two years ago arguing it was an asteroid [ slashdot.org ] .
The comet theory does explain the odd phenomenon of the night skies being lit up for several nights following the event all across Europe--about 3,000 miles away .
Researchers believe this points to a comet because when the space shuttles launched today pass through the atmosphere they cause or improve the formation of noctilucent clouds [ wikipedia.org ] .
These clouds are so high up ( 55 miles ) they are only made of ice particles and they are only visible at night which gives researchers reason to draw the conclusion that the 300 metric tons of water vapor that the shuttle pumps into the Earth 's thermosphere must likely indicate that the thing that hit was loaded with water or ice .
This would make it a comet and not an asteroid .
This--of course--raises new upper-atmosphere physics problems for the Tunguska event but explains the strange phenomenon over the skies of the world following it .
You may remember analysis of Lake Cheko last year [ slashdot.org ] in an effort to better understand what happened.Well , if every comet that hit earth dropped off a little bit of water--even in the form of noctilucent clouds ... it 'd take a while but is it really so far fetch to think that ultimately all our water and atmosphere are extra-terrestrial ?
Probably unlikely but over a long enough time , who knows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently I submitted a story [slashdot.org] that's probably not going to be published that claims:Space.com brings word of a team using new evidence is suggesting that the mysterious 1908 event in Tunguska was a comet [space.com] despite a team two years ago arguing it was an asteroid [slashdot.org].
The comet theory does explain the odd phenomenon of the night skies being lit up for several nights following the event all across Europe--about 3,000 miles away.
Researchers believe this points to a comet because when the space shuttles launched today pass through the atmosphere they cause or improve the formation of noctilucent clouds [wikipedia.org].
These clouds are so high up (55 miles) they are only made of ice particles and they are only visible at night which gives researchers reason to draw the conclusion that the 300 metric tons of water vapor that the shuttle pumps into the Earth's thermosphere must likely indicate that the thing that hit was loaded with water or ice.
This would make it a comet and not an asteroid.
This--of course--raises new upper-atmosphere physics problems for the Tunguska event but explains the strange phenomenon over the skies of the world following it.
You may remember analysis of Lake Cheko last year [slashdot.org] in an effort to better understand what happened.Well, if every comet that hit earth dropped off a little bit of water--even in the form of noctilucent clouds ... it'd take a while but is it really so far fetch to think that ultimately all our water and atmosphere are extra-terrestrial?
Probably unlikely but over a long enough time, who knows?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554463</id>
	<title>OR....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246476480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DUH, scientists have found significant evidence that we're all leftovers from old stars and supernovas.  Its no surprise that everything in our vicinity would be very similar to each other, since we all came from the same place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DUH , scientists have found significant evidence that we 're all leftovers from old stars and supernovas .
Its no surprise that everything in our vicinity would be very similar to each other , since we all came from the same place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DUH, scientists have found significant evidence that we're all leftovers from old stars and supernovas.
Its no surprise that everything in our vicinity would be very similar to each other, since we all came from the same place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28558361</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone answer this honest question?</title>
	<author>MightyDrunken</author>
	<datestamp>1246552620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I keep going over the proof for Noah's flood. It's not as far-flung as it sounds if you actually RTFM. It calls for a number of animals that would fit in a rowboat- it doesn't have to be millions. And it doesn't have to be a full world, either: Rome 'taxed the world' and I'm certain they didn't get New Jersey.</p></div><p>What?
Considering there are thousands of species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles each. Plus 100,000s of species of plants and millions of species of insects it must be quite a large row boat. No they could not have evolved suddenly in the last few thousand years, into the multitude we see today.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So here's the question.</p><p>What *actually* happens when the poles reverse and the Van Allen (etc) belts come down for a short time?  The solar wind, largely H3 I'm told, touches an oxygen-covered surface at 33,000mph.  So hot hydrogen..on oxygen...rain?</p></div><p>Well the Van Allen belts will dissipate presumably dumping some charged particles in the atmosphere. The reduced magnetic field will allow more solar wind and cosmic rays to hit the atmosphere. But considering there have been many such reversals over time and life has survived fine it's probably not that bad. Regarding rain well I don't know but as the last <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole\_reversal" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">reversal</a> [wikipedia.org] was 780,000 years ago I doubt it was ever recorded. Homo sapiens are believed to have originated 200,000 years ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep going over the proof for Noah 's flood .
It 's not as far-flung as it sounds if you actually RTFM .
It calls for a number of animals that would fit in a rowboat- it does n't have to be millions .
And it does n't have to be a full world , either : Rome 'taxed the world ' and I 'm certain they did n't get New Jersey.What ?
Considering there are thousands of species of mammals , birds , amphibians and reptiles each .
Plus 100,000s of species of plants and millions of species of insects it must be quite a large row boat .
No they could not have evolved suddenly in the last few thousand years , into the multitude we see today.So here 's the question.What * actually * happens when the poles reverse and the Van Allen ( etc ) belts come down for a short time ?
The solar wind , largely H3 I 'm told , touches an oxygen-covered surface at 33,000mph .
So hot hydrogen..on oxygen...rain ? Well the Van Allen belts will dissipate presumably dumping some charged particles in the atmosphere .
The reduced magnetic field will allow more solar wind and cosmic rays to hit the atmosphere .
But considering there have been many such reversals over time and life has survived fine it 's probably not that bad .
Regarding rain well I do n't know but as the last reversal [ wikipedia.org ] was 780,000 years ago I doubt it was ever recorded .
Homo sapiens are believed to have originated 200,000 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep going over the proof for Noah's flood.
It's not as far-flung as it sounds if you actually RTFM.
It calls for a number of animals that would fit in a rowboat- it doesn't have to be millions.
And it doesn't have to be a full world, either: Rome 'taxed the world' and I'm certain they didn't get New Jersey.What?
Considering there are thousands of species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles each.
Plus 100,000s of species of plants and millions of species of insects it must be quite a large row boat.
No they could not have evolved suddenly in the last few thousand years, into the multitude we see today.So here's the question.What *actually* happens when the poles reverse and the Van Allen (etc) belts come down for a short time?
The solar wind, largely H3 I'm told, touches an oxygen-covered surface at 33,000mph.
So hot hydrogen..on oxygen...rain?Well the Van Allen belts will dissipate presumably dumping some charged particles in the atmosphere.
The reduced magnetic field will allow more solar wind and cosmic rays to hit the atmosphere.
But considering there have been many such reversals over time and life has survived fine it's probably not that bad.
Regarding rain well I don't know but as the last reversal [wikipedia.org] was 780,000 years ago I doubt it was ever recorded.
Homo sapiens are believed to have originated 200,000 years ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28556047</id>
	<title>sure is taking a lot of faith</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246539840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to believe in some of these theories....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to believe in some of these theories... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to believe in some of these theories....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28557317</id>
	<title>I guess I'll disagree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246547760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere is N-14, which is the natural decay product of Carbon-14.  Likewise, most of the argon in the atmosphere is Ar-40, which is the natural decay product of Potassium-40.  Therefore I'd say the comet comparison is just a coincidence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the nitrogen in the Earth 's atmosphere is N-14 , which is the natural decay product of Carbon-14 .
Likewise , most of the argon in the atmosphere is Ar-40 , which is the natural decay product of Potassium-40 .
Therefore I 'd say the comet comparison is just a coincidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere is N-14, which is the natural decay product of Carbon-14.
Likewise, most of the argon in the atmosphere is Ar-40, which is the natural decay product of Potassium-40.
Therefore I'd say the comet comparison is just a coincidence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28555783</id>
	<title>You know what happens when you assume...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246537080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever think that the ones we measure now don't have a lot of water because all the ones with water already hit the planet?  Not to say that its necessarily likely that ALL the comets with significant amounts of water would hit the Earth, but we've only measure what, 4 comets, I don't think that's enough to make the assumption that the water on Earth could not have come from comets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever think that the ones we measure now do n't have a lot of water because all the ones with water already hit the planet ?
Not to say that its necessarily likely that ALL the comets with significant amounts of water would hit the Earth , but we 've only measure what , 4 comets , I do n't think that 's enough to make the assumption that the water on Earth could not have come from comets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever think that the ones we measure now don't have a lot of water because all the ones with water already hit the planet?
Not to say that its necessarily likely that ALL the comets with significant amounts of water would hit the Earth, but we've only measure what, 4 comets, I don't think that's enough to make the assumption that the water on Earth could not have come from comets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553845</id>
	<title>But there's soooo much water on (and in) Earth...</title>
	<author>Nutria</author>
	<datestamp>1246468620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... how could anyone reasonably think that comets brought it all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... how could anyone reasonably think that comets brought it all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... how could anyone reasonably think that comets brought it all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554927</id>
	<title>Re: No, it isn't a mystery....</title>
	<author>Black Parrot</author>
	<datestamp>1246567980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, your passage doesn't actually say anything about where the ocean and atmosphere came from.  It just claims that God pushed some water around a bit.</p><p>If you're going to vest your credibility in a mythological text, you should at least read it carefully.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , your passage does n't actually say anything about where the ocean and atmosphere came from .
It just claims that God pushed some water around a bit.If you 're going to vest your credibility in a mythological text , you should at least read it carefully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, your passage doesn't actually say anything about where the ocean and atmosphere came from.
It just claims that God pushed some water around a bit.If you're going to vest your credibility in a mythological text, you should at least read it carefully.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553871</id>
	<title>god</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246468920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure God 'seeded' the...</p><p>nevermind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure God 'seeded ' the...nevermind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure God 'seeded' the...nevermind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554793</id>
	<title>Get up to date on planetary formation theory</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1246566540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The answer to your question is, because the way the planets arose is slowly getting elucidated and it is a lot more complicated than anybody used to think. One very important concept is the "snow line" - the distance from the Sun at which ice can form. A build up of icy objects around the snow line followed by gravitational disturbances could result in the transport of <b>large</b> amounts of ice in both directions - inwards and outwards. Then the gravity well of accumulating planetary masses does the rest.<p>This is a rapidly evolving field and I don't pretend to have more than a very casual reader's knowledge - but think of it like this. The Earth is, in cosmic terms, a small planet. Its water layer is a minute fraction of its mass. In terms of the solar system as a whole, the percentage of the available water on Earth is extremely small.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer to your question is , because the way the planets arose is slowly getting elucidated and it is a lot more complicated than anybody used to think .
One very important concept is the " snow line " - the distance from the Sun at which ice can form .
A build up of icy objects around the snow line followed by gravitational disturbances could result in the transport of large amounts of ice in both directions - inwards and outwards .
Then the gravity well of accumulating planetary masses does the rest.This is a rapidly evolving field and I do n't pretend to have more than a very casual reader 's knowledge - but think of it like this .
The Earth is , in cosmic terms , a small planet .
Its water layer is a minute fraction of its mass .
In terms of the solar system as a whole , the percentage of the available water on Earth is extremely small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer to your question is, because the way the planets arose is slowly getting elucidated and it is a lot more complicated than anybody used to think.
One very important concept is the "snow line" - the distance from the Sun at which ice can form.
A build up of icy objects around the snow line followed by gravitational disturbances could result in the transport of large amounts of ice in both directions - inwards and outwards.
Then the gravity well of accumulating planetary masses does the rest.This is a rapidly evolving field and I don't pretend to have more than a very casual reader's knowledge - but think of it like this.
The Earth is, in cosmic terms, a small planet.
Its water layer is a minute fraction of its mass.
In terms of the solar system as a whole, the percentage of the available water on Earth is extremely small.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554731</id>
	<title>Ramen!</title>
	<author>bazorg</author>
	<datestamp>1246565700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can easily picture the Flying Spaghetti Monster lobbing comets around<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can easily picture the Flying Spaghetti Monster lobbing comets around .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can easily picture the Flying Spaghetti Monster lobbing comets around ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553843</id>
	<title>Nitrogen came from comets . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246468560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nitrogen came from comets, and methane came from Uranus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nitrogen came from comets , and methane came from Uranus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nitrogen came from comets, and methane came from Uranus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28556193</id>
	<title>Re:Tunguska Clouds an Indication?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246541220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the comets we get today have been literally cooked by the sun for millions of years..  I wouldn't be surprised that comets when the solar system and earth formed had more ice because they hadn't been pounded by the sun particles for millions of years.</p><p>We probably have to go the Oort cloud to get any kind of verification of what kind of comets could have been hitting Earth when the oceans was forming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the comets we get today have been literally cooked by the sun for millions of years.. I would n't be surprised that comets when the solar system and earth formed had more ice because they had n't been pounded by the sun particles for millions of years.We probably have to go the Oort cloud to get any kind of verification of what kind of comets could have been hitting Earth when the oceans was forming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the comets we get today have been literally cooked by the sun for millions of years..  I wouldn't be surprised that comets when the solar system and earth formed had more ice because they hadn't been pounded by the sun particles for millions of years.We probably have to go the Oort cloud to get any kind of verification of what kind of comets could have been hitting Earth when the oceans was forming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28569173</id>
	<title>Re:Tunguska Clouds an Indication?</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1246653900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why it's a <i>Theory</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why it 's a Theory</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why it's a Theory</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554007</id>
	<title>Determining the origins of ....</title>
	<author>glitch23</author>
	<datestamp>1246471140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just about anything in the universe, and specifically various aspects of this planet, is becoming more like numerology than anything else. Case in point:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But on the other, they say that the ratio of nitrogen isotopes in these comets almost exactly matches the ratio in Earth's atmosphere. That suggests that while Earth's oceans must have come from somewhere else, Earth's early atmosphere was probably seeded by comet.</p></div><p>Any pattern they find seems to make scientists believe something is true, no matter how improbable. Scientists are only seeing what they want to see in this data. Despite this method of guessing based on simply "interesting patterns" and hoping they are right, these very same people consider taking on faith what the Holy Bible says about the origins of the world as being ludicrous. Ahhh, nothing like the smell of hypocrisy in the early morning hours. Flame on for bucking the *insertGroupNamehere* agenda.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>just about anything in the universe , and specifically various aspects of this planet , is becoming more like numerology than anything else .
Case in point : But on the other , they say that the ratio of nitrogen isotopes in these comets almost exactly matches the ratio in Earth 's atmosphere .
That suggests that while Earth 's oceans must have come from somewhere else , Earth 's early atmosphere was probably seeded by comet.Any pattern they find seems to make scientists believe something is true , no matter how improbable .
Scientists are only seeing what they want to see in this data .
Despite this method of guessing based on simply " interesting patterns " and hoping they are right , these very same people consider taking on faith what the Holy Bible says about the origins of the world as being ludicrous .
Ahhh , nothing like the smell of hypocrisy in the early morning hours .
Flame on for bucking the * insertGroupNamehere * agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just about anything in the universe, and specifically various aspects of this planet, is becoming more like numerology than anything else.
Case in point:But on the other, they say that the ratio of nitrogen isotopes in these comets almost exactly matches the ratio in Earth's atmosphere.
That suggests that while Earth's oceans must have come from somewhere else, Earth's early atmosphere was probably seeded by comet.Any pattern they find seems to make scientists believe something is true, no matter how improbable.
Scientists are only seeing what they want to see in this data.
Despite this method of guessing based on simply "interesting patterns" and hoping they are right, these very same people consider taking on faith what the Holy Bible says about the origins of the world as being ludicrous.
Ahhh, nothing like the smell of hypocrisy in the early morning hours.
Flame on for bucking the *insertGroupNamehere* agenda.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553945</id>
	<title>Obvious?</title>
	<author>muphin</author>
	<datestamp>1246470060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although comets may have initiated seeding of life and the foundry of everything from water to minerals<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. there has been proof that water is abundant in space and maybe have just been absorbed into the atmosphere on earth and generated that way, over time rain would have brought the water molecules to the surface.<br>

<a href="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/milkyway\_water\_010412.html" title="space.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/milkyway\_water\_010412.html</a> [space.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although comets may have initiated seeding of life and the foundry of everything from water to minerals .. there has been proof that water is abundant in space and maybe have just been absorbed into the atmosphere on earth and generated that way , over time rain would have brought the water molecules to the surface .
http : //www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/milkyway \ _water \ _010412.html [ space.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although comets may have initiated seeding of life and the foundry of everything from water to minerals .. there has been proof that water is abundant in space and maybe have just been absorbed into the atmosphere on earth and generated that way, over time rain would have brought the water molecules to the surface.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/milkyway\_water\_010412.html [space.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554091</id>
	<title>Re:It is possible, but not certain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"></div><p>What comet63 said.  Large primoridal clouds of hydrogen are easy to understand, and oxygen is enough lighter than carbon that it could occur early on in stellar formation, I'd think (IANAAP, IMBFOS).  So I can imagine large clouds of the two gases igniting in the early part of our planetary history, with enough being captured by our own gravity well to compress and become water.  The rest, as they say, is geography. Add lots of the slightly less reactive nitrogen and you'd get something approaching the mixture we're breathing.  But in order to seed both the Earth and the Oort cloud, those gas sources would have to be <i>huge</i>.  What happened to the rest of it?  Blown away on the solar wind?  If so, could we see traces like this around other star systems and make a guess about water atmospheres?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What comet63 said .
Large primoridal clouds of hydrogen are easy to understand , and oxygen is enough lighter than carbon that it could occur early on in stellar formation , I 'd think ( IANAAP , IMBFOS ) .
So I can imagine large clouds of the two gases igniting in the early part of our planetary history , with enough being captured by our own gravity well to compress and become water .
The rest , as they say , is geography .
Add lots of the slightly less reactive nitrogen and you 'd get something approaching the mixture we 're breathing .
But in order to seed both the Earth and the Oort cloud , those gas sources would have to be huge .
What happened to the rest of it ?
Blown away on the solar wind ?
If so , could we see traces like this around other star systems and make a guess about water atmospheres ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What comet63 said.
Large primoridal clouds of hydrogen are easy to understand, and oxygen is enough lighter than carbon that it could occur early on in stellar formation, I'd think (IANAAP, IMBFOS).
So I can imagine large clouds of the two gases igniting in the early part of our planetary history, with enough being captured by our own gravity well to compress and become water.
The rest, as they say, is geography.
Add lots of the slightly less reactive nitrogen and you'd get something approaching the mixture we're breathing.
But in order to seed both the Earth and the Oort cloud, those gas sources would have to be huge.
What happened to the rest of it?
Blown away on the solar wind?
If so, could we see traces like this around other star systems and make a guess about water atmospheres?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28558359</id>
	<title>Seeded by comets?  Or not...</title>
	<author>dtjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1246552620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> they say that the ratio of nitrogen isotopes in these comets almost exactly matches the ratio in Earth's atmosphere. That suggests that while Earth's oceans must have come from somewhere else, Earth's early atmosphere was probably seeded by comets.</i> </p><p>Or the nitrogen in the comets and the nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere had a common origin which seems much more likely, the story title notwithstanding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they say that the ratio of nitrogen isotopes in these comets almost exactly matches the ratio in Earth 's atmosphere .
That suggests that while Earth 's oceans must have come from somewhere else , Earth 's early atmosphere was probably seeded by comets .
Or the nitrogen in the comets and the nitrogen in the Earth 's atmosphere had a common origin which seems much more likely , the story title notwithstanding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> they say that the ratio of nitrogen isotopes in these comets almost exactly matches the ratio in Earth's atmosphere.
That suggests that while Earth's oceans must have come from somewhere else, Earth's early atmosphere was probably seeded by comets.
Or the nitrogen in the comets and the nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere had a common origin which seems much more likely, the story title notwithstanding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554029</id>
	<title>Re:Tunguska Clouds an Indication?</title>
	<author>khayman80</author>
	<datestamp>1246471440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it'd take a while but is it really so far fetched to think that ultimately all our water and atmosphere are extra-terrestrial?</p></div></blockquote><p>The point is that the isotope abundances of the oceans don't match the only four comets that have been observed precisely enough. H20 and HDO are easily distinguished from each other, and deuterium (the "D" in HDO) is quite stable so the isotope abundances shouldn't have changed. We've only measured 4 comets, though, so perhaps other comets more closely resemble our oceans.</p><p>Coincidentally, I attended Dr. Goldblatt's fascinating talk at the Fall 2008 AGU conference where he showed that the <a href="http://dumbscientist.com/archives/the-faint-young-sun-paradox" title="dumbscientist.com">faint young sun paradox</a> [dumbscientist.com] could be mitigated by a higher nitrogen pressure in the primordial atmosphere. Someone in the crowd (a Slashdot user, perhaps?) answered my question about experimental constraints on this pressure by saying that current research involving "raindrops" might produce a constraint soon.</p><p>This paper seems like it should be relevant, but I've yet to see a direct connection. If anything, the disparities in the isotope abundances between 15N/14N and D/H seem to imply their origins are (at best) only loosely connected. But unfortunately the guy who shouted "raindrops" didn't have a microphone and he was across a crowded lecture hall, so I don't have the foggiest idea what he meant. Maybe "raindrops" was a brief reference to the "enstatite chondrites" on page 7 of this new paper (the context seems similar, at least). However, Javoy's paper was published in 1986 and my mysterious benefactor definitely said the research was currently underway. Plus, the topic at the time was the total pressure of nitrogen, not the isotope abundance...</p><p>Anyone who knows about this subject, please enlighten me!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... it 'd take a while but is it really so far fetched to think that ultimately all our water and atmosphere are extra-terrestrial ? The point is that the isotope abundances of the oceans do n't match the only four comets that have been observed precisely enough .
H20 and HDO are easily distinguished from each other , and deuterium ( the " D " in HDO ) is quite stable so the isotope abundances should n't have changed .
We 've only measured 4 comets , though , so perhaps other comets more closely resemble our oceans.Coincidentally , I attended Dr. Goldblatt 's fascinating talk at the Fall 2008 AGU conference where he showed that the faint young sun paradox [ dumbscientist.com ] could be mitigated by a higher nitrogen pressure in the primordial atmosphere .
Someone in the crowd ( a Slashdot user , perhaps ?
) answered my question about experimental constraints on this pressure by saying that current research involving " raindrops " might produce a constraint soon.This paper seems like it should be relevant , but I 've yet to see a direct connection .
If anything , the disparities in the isotope abundances between 15N/14N and D/H seem to imply their origins are ( at best ) only loosely connected .
But unfortunately the guy who shouted " raindrops " did n't have a microphone and he was across a crowded lecture hall , so I do n't have the foggiest idea what he meant .
Maybe " raindrops " was a brief reference to the " enstatite chondrites " on page 7 of this new paper ( the context seems similar , at least ) .
However , Javoy 's paper was published in 1986 and my mysterious benefactor definitely said the research was currently underway .
Plus , the topic at the time was the total pressure of nitrogen , not the isotope abundance...Anyone who knows about this subject , please enlighten me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... it'd take a while but is it really so far fetched to think that ultimately all our water and atmosphere are extra-terrestrial?The point is that the isotope abundances of the oceans don't match the only four comets that have been observed precisely enough.
H20 and HDO are easily distinguished from each other, and deuterium (the "D" in HDO) is quite stable so the isotope abundances shouldn't have changed.
We've only measured 4 comets, though, so perhaps other comets more closely resemble our oceans.Coincidentally, I attended Dr. Goldblatt's fascinating talk at the Fall 2008 AGU conference where he showed that the faint young sun paradox [dumbscientist.com] could be mitigated by a higher nitrogen pressure in the primordial atmosphere.
Someone in the crowd (a Slashdot user, perhaps?
) answered my question about experimental constraints on this pressure by saying that current research involving "raindrops" might produce a constraint soon.This paper seems like it should be relevant, but I've yet to see a direct connection.
If anything, the disparities in the isotope abundances between 15N/14N and D/H seem to imply their origins are (at best) only loosely connected.
But unfortunately the guy who shouted "raindrops" didn't have a microphone and he was across a crowded lecture hall, so I don't have the foggiest idea what he meant.
Maybe "raindrops" was a brief reference to the "enstatite chondrites" on page 7 of this new paper (the context seems similar, at least).
However, Javoy's paper was published in 1986 and my mysterious benefactor definitely said the research was currently underway.
Plus, the topic at the time was the total pressure of nitrogen, not the isotope abundance...Anyone who knows about this subject, please enlighten me!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554981</id>
	<title>I don't understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246525500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am tired of hearing that water or atmosphere have come from comets.<br>What are comets? Aren't they the remnants of what did not become planets? Don't they come from the same cloud of dust that formed the solar system?<br>So, what the hell is this theory that water or atmosphere or life comes from outside earth? From comets?</p><p>The process of formation of earth included comet and asteroid collisions. It's the way planets are formed. The whole planet formed from matter from outside of earth because planets are formed by matter as it begins to group by the effect of gravity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am tired of hearing that water or atmosphere have come from comets.What are comets ?
Are n't they the remnants of what did not become planets ?
Do n't they come from the same cloud of dust that formed the solar system ? So , what the hell is this theory that water or atmosphere or life comes from outside earth ?
From comets ? The process of formation of earth included comet and asteroid collisions .
It 's the way planets are formed .
The whole planet formed from matter from outside of earth because planets are formed by matter as it begins to group by the effect of gravity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am tired of hearing that water or atmosphere have come from comets.What are comets?
Aren't they the remnants of what did not become planets?
Don't they come from the same cloud of dust that formed the solar system?So, what the hell is this theory that water or atmosphere or life comes from outside earth?
From comets?The process of formation of earth included comet and asteroid collisions.
It's the way planets are formed.
The whole planet formed from matter from outside of earth because planets are formed by matter as it begins to group by the effect of gravity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28557785</id>
	<title>Re:Tunguska Clouds an Indication?</title>
	<author>SleepingWaterBear</author>
	<datestamp>1246549680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, if every comet that hit earth dropped off a little bit of water--even in the form of noctilucent clouds<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it'd take a while but is it really so far fetch to think that ultimately all our water and atmosphere are extra-terrestrial?  Probably unlikely but over a long enough time, who knows?</p></div><p>I think that the point of the summary is that if the water were primarily from comets then we'd expect the water on earth to have a similar ratio of deuterium to hydrogen to that found in comets.  Since it doesn't, either most comets out there have a very different composition from the ones we've observed, or the earth's water must have a different source.  Of course the water is extraterrestrial in origin (like everything else), but it looks as if we didn't get it from comets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if every comet that hit earth dropped off a little bit of water--even in the form of noctilucent clouds ... it 'd take a while but is it really so far fetch to think that ultimately all our water and atmosphere are extra-terrestrial ?
Probably unlikely but over a long enough time , who knows ? I think that the point of the summary is that if the water were primarily from comets then we 'd expect the water on earth to have a similar ratio of deuterium to hydrogen to that found in comets .
Since it does n't , either most comets out there have a very different composition from the ones we 've observed , or the earth 's water must have a different source .
Of course the water is extraterrestrial in origin ( like everything else ) , but it looks as if we did n't get it from comets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if every comet that hit earth dropped off a little bit of water--even in the form of noctilucent clouds ... it'd take a while but is it really so far fetch to think that ultimately all our water and atmosphere are extra-terrestrial?
Probably unlikely but over a long enough time, who knows?I think that the point of the summary is that if the water were primarily from comets then we'd expect the water on earth to have a similar ratio of deuterium to hydrogen to that found in comets.
Since it doesn't, either most comets out there have a very different composition from the ones we've observed, or the earth's water must have a different source.
Of course the water is extraterrestrial in origin (like everything else), but it looks as if we didn't get it from comets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28555751</id>
	<title>Re:No, it isn't a mystery....</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246536600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, it isn't a mystery.... Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:2 And the earth... and God saw that it was good.</p></div><p>Yeah, all right, what really happened? Tell the truth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it is n't a mystery.... Gen 1 : 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth .
Gen 1 : 2 And the earth... and God saw that it was good.Yeah , all right , what really happened ?
Tell the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it isn't a mystery.... Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth... and God saw that it was good.Yeah, all right, what really happened?
Tell the truth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553887</id>
	<title>The answer to all questions ever for ever!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246469220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone Farrted!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone Farrted ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone Farrted!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554033</id>
	<title>No, it isn't a mystery....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246471500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"One of the biggest puzzles of astrobiology is the origin of the Earth's oceans and atmosphere."

No, it isn't a mystery....

Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:6  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7  And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:9  And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10  And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" One of the biggest puzzles of astrobiology is the origin of the Earth 's oceans and atmosphere .
" No , it is n't a mystery... . Gen 1 : 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth .
Gen 1 : 2 And the earth was without form , and void ; and darkness was upon the face of the deep .
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters .
Gen 1 : 6 And God said , Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters , and let it divide the waters from the waters .
Gen 1 : 7 And God made the firmament , and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament : and it was so .
Gen 1 : 9 And God said , Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place , and let the dry land appear : and it was so .
Gen 1 : 10 And God called the dry land Earth ; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas : and God saw that it was good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"One of the biggest puzzles of astrobiology is the origin of the Earth's oceans and atmosphere.
"

No, it isn't a mystery....

Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:6  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7  And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:9  And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10  And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553913</id>
	<title>Uhmmm...</title>
	<author>IonOtter</author>
	<datestamp>1246469640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Comets Probably Seeded Earth's Nitrogen Atmosphere</i></p><p>So we've been breathing space spooge all along?</p><p>Well THAT explains a lot...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comets Probably Seeded Earth 's Nitrogen AtmosphereSo we 've been breathing space spooge all along ? Well THAT explains a lot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comets Probably Seeded Earth's Nitrogen AtmosphereSo we've been breathing space spooge all along?Well THAT explains a lot...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553863</id>
	<title>It is possible, but not certain</title>
	<author>comet63</author>
	<datestamp>1246468740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article notes that the ratio of the nitrogen isotopes matches what is in the earths atmosphere.  It seems to me, that just makes it possible that the comets are a significant source of the nitrogen on Earth.  It is also possible that the nitrogen in the comets and in the atmosphere came from a common source.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article notes that the ratio of the nitrogen isotopes matches what is in the earths atmosphere .
It seems to me , that just makes it possible that the comets are a significant source of the nitrogen on Earth .
It is also possible that the nitrogen in the comets and in the atmosphere came from a common source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article notes that the ratio of the nitrogen isotopes matches what is in the earths atmosphere.
It seems to me, that just makes it possible that the comets are a significant source of the nitrogen on Earth.
It is also possible that the nitrogen in the comets and in the atmosphere came from a common source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554023</id>
	<title>Atoms</title>
	<author>nikanth</author>
	<datestamp>1246471320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If everything is made of electrons, protons, neutrons,.... then any thing can form from anything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If everything is made of electrons , protons , neutrons,.... then any thing can form from anything ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If everything is made of electrons, protons, neutrons,.... then any thing can form from anything ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28555979</id>
	<title>Maybe those commets formed at a different place ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246539180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't it just be that there was a high abundance of water or hydrogen and oxygen at least in the inner regions of the solar system that was just successively collected through gravity, when/after the earth formed ?</p><p>Of the inner planets, Mercury is simply too small and too close to the sun to hold water, Venus has almost the mass of the earth, but has a different athmosphere and is extremely hot. It's probably also just too close to the sun.<br>Closest outer planet is Mars, it's supposed to have had water, maybe still has some in frozen form. Mars is probably just too small, maybe also too cold to build a similar athmosphere.<br>So I wonder, if water molecules or hydrogen and oxygen maybe just haven been there in high abundance around the sun, but the earth was the most successful collector after all that's also able to holds a lot of it's water (not dissipating it back in space and not having a lot of chemical reactions on that use those molecules up again). The reason, why earth did it so well might just be that it has the right mass and is in the right distance to the sun to have the right temperature.</p><p>Maybe the ratio of normal hydrogen to deuterium was also dependent on the distance to the sun. So actually only the matter that clustered together through gravity around earth orbit has the ratio that we meassure on earth. The commets that were tested might have formed somewhere else.<br>I wonder, if the water on the Jupiter and Saturn moons shows a different ratio of deuterium and hydrogen. That might support that idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't it just be that there was a high abundance of water or hydrogen and oxygen at least in the inner regions of the solar system that was just successively collected through gravity , when/after the earth formed ? Of the inner planets , Mercury is simply too small and too close to the sun to hold water , Venus has almost the mass of the earth , but has a different athmosphere and is extremely hot .
It 's probably also just too close to the sun.Closest outer planet is Mars , it 's supposed to have had water , maybe still has some in frozen form .
Mars is probably just too small , maybe also too cold to build a similar athmosphere.So I wonder , if water molecules or hydrogen and oxygen maybe just haven been there in high abundance around the sun , but the earth was the most successful collector after all that 's also able to holds a lot of it 's water ( not dissipating it back in space and not having a lot of chemical reactions on that use those molecules up again ) .
The reason , why earth did it so well might just be that it has the right mass and is in the right distance to the sun to have the right temperature.Maybe the ratio of normal hydrogen to deuterium was also dependent on the distance to the sun .
So actually only the matter that clustered together through gravity around earth orbit has the ratio that we meassure on earth .
The commets that were tested might have formed somewhere else.I wonder , if the water on the Jupiter and Saturn moons shows a different ratio of deuterium and hydrogen .
That might support that idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't it just be that there was a high abundance of water or hydrogen and oxygen at least in the inner regions of the solar system that was just successively collected through gravity, when/after the earth formed ?Of the inner planets, Mercury is simply too small and too close to the sun to hold water, Venus has almost the mass of the earth, but has a different athmosphere and is extremely hot.
It's probably also just too close to the sun.Closest outer planet is Mars, it's supposed to have had water, maybe still has some in frozen form.
Mars is probably just too small, maybe also too cold to build a similar athmosphere.So I wonder, if water molecules or hydrogen and oxygen maybe just haven been there in high abundance around the sun, but the earth was the most successful collector after all that's also able to holds a lot of it's water (not dissipating it back in space and not having a lot of chemical reactions on that use those molecules up again).
The reason, why earth did it so well might just be that it has the right mass and is in the right distance to the sun to have the right temperature.Maybe the ratio of normal hydrogen to deuterium was also dependent on the distance to the sun.
So actually only the matter that clustered together through gravity around earth orbit has the ratio that we meassure on earth.
The commets that were tested might have formed somewhere else.I wonder, if the water on the Jupiter and Saturn moons shows a different ratio of deuterium and hydrogen.
That might support that idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28556537</id>
	<title>Re:Determining the origins of ....</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1246543560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Carefully note the words "probably" and "suggests."</p><p>In other words, nobody has claimed anything is "true."  They noted an interesting pattern and thought about what it could mean.  Now they'll try to devise experiments to test that hypothesis.</p><p>Contrast this with theological reasoning: "the bible says so, therefore it is true.  End of discussion."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Carefully note the words " probably " and " suggests .
" In other words , nobody has claimed anything is " true .
" They noted an interesting pattern and thought about what it could mean .
Now they 'll try to devise experiments to test that hypothesis.Contrast this with theological reasoning : " the bible says so , therefore it is true .
End of discussion .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carefully note the words "probably" and "suggests.
"In other words, nobody has claimed anything is "true.
"  They noted an interesting pattern and thought about what it could mean.
Now they'll try to devise experiments to test that hypothesis.Contrast this with theological reasoning: "the bible says so, therefore it is true.
End of discussion.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554027</id>
	<title>Re:Tunguska Clouds an Indication?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246471380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Noctilucent clouds or not, the deuterium ratio doesn't match, so the answer is 'no'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Noctilucent clouds or not , the deuterium ratio does n't match , so the answer is 'no' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Noctilucent clouds or not, the deuterium ratio doesn't match, so the answer is 'no'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28559243</id>
	<title>RE: One of the biggest puzzles of astrobiology</title>
	<author>ewenix</author>
	<datestamp>1246556040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is only a puzzle if you come from a particular worldview.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is only a puzzle if you come from a particular worldview .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is only a puzzle if you come from a particular worldview.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28556037</id>
	<title>God did it.</title>
	<author>tbgreve</author>
	<datestamp>1246539780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext># Second day: God creates a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!") - the second command - to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named "heavens".
# Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command). "Earth" and "sea" are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees (the fourth command).
Borrowed From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation\_according\_to\_Genesis" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation\_according\_to\_Genesis</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext># Second day : God creates a firmament ( " Let a firmament be... !
" ) - the second command - to divide the waters above from the waters below .
The firmament is named " heavens " .
# Third day : God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place , and dry land to appear ( the third command ) .
" Earth " and " sea " are named .
God commands the earth to bring forth grass , plants , and fruit-bearing trees ( the fourth command ) .
Borrowed From http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation \ _according \ _to \ _Genesis [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext># Second day: God creates a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!
") - the second command - to divide the waters above from the waters below.
The firmament is named "heavens".
# Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command).
"Earth" and "sea" are named.
God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees (the fourth command).
Borrowed From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation\_according\_to\_Genesis [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553941</id>
	<title>No, no</title>
	<author>djconrad</author>
	<datestamp>1246470060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone knows nitrogen is here because of the Holy Sauce dripped from His Noodly Appendage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows nitrogen is here because of the Holy Sauce dripped from His Noodly Appendage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows nitrogen is here because of the Holy Sauce dripped from His Noodly Appendage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554231</id>
	<title>Yes, it is a mystery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246473900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If those passages aren't a mystery to you then I say you need to go back to elementary school and learn how to read critically. Who is this God character? How did he create the heaven and the earth from something without form, out of a void? There are obviously some details missing and I demand a refund for this explanation of the universe you have sold to humanity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If those passages are n't a mystery to you then I say you need to go back to elementary school and learn how to read critically .
Who is this God character ?
How did he create the heaven and the earth from something without form , out of a void ?
There are obviously some details missing and I demand a refund for this explanation of the universe you have sold to humanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If those passages aren't a mystery to you then I say you need to go back to elementary school and learn how to read critically.
Who is this God character?
How did he create the heaven and the earth from something without form, out of a void?
There are obviously some details missing and I demand a refund for this explanation of the universe you have sold to humanity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28558495</id>
	<title>Re:I don't understand</title>
	<author>MightyDrunken</author>
	<datestamp>1246553160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't understand</p> </div><p>Uh, huh.

Well if you notice that the four inner planets are rocky and most are devoid of water. While the outer planets are made of gas and bigger maybe the material that formed the solar system was not evenly spread.

The top reason for this is the sun is hot!
Read an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet\_formation#Formation\_of\_planets" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">
encyclopaedia</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand Uh , huh .
Well if you notice that the four inner planets are rocky and most are devoid of water .
While the outer planets are made of gas and bigger maybe the material that formed the solar system was not evenly spread .
The top reason for this is the sun is hot !
Read an encyclopaedia [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand Uh, huh.
Well if you notice that the four inner planets are rocky and most are devoid of water.
While the outer planets are made of gas and bigger maybe the material that formed the solar system was not evenly spread.
The top reason for this is the sun is hot!
Read an 
encyclopaedia [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554685</id>
	<title>fuck a sh1T</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246565100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">lizard - In other FUCKING USELESS of Jordan Hubbard</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>lizard - In other FUCKING USELESS of Jordan Hubbard [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lizard - In other FUCKING USELESS of Jordan Hubbard [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554245</id>
	<title>Can someone answer this honest question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246473960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I keep going over the proof for Noah's flood. It's not as far-flung as it sounds if you actually RTFM. It calls for a number of animals that would fit in a rowboat- it doesn't have to be millions. And it doesn't have to be a full world, either: Rome 'taxed the world' and I'm certain they didn't get New Jersey.</p><p>So here's the question.</p><p>What *actually* happens when the poles reverse and the Van Allen (etc) belts come down for a short time?  The solar wind, largely H3 I'm told, touches an oxygen-covered surface at 33,000mph.  So hot hydrogen..on oxygen...rain?</p><p>Everyone I've asked just asserts how ridiculous the question is, but no one ever has a response, other than to roll their eyes. There must be an answer- another reversal is coming up.</p><p>And this relates to the article by suggesting the pathology that the planet was heavy *nitrogen* first, and the added water brought the oxygen...</p><p>I'm not a scientist, but obviously neither are the people I've asked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep going over the proof for Noah 's flood .
It 's not as far-flung as it sounds if you actually RTFM .
It calls for a number of animals that would fit in a rowboat- it does n't have to be millions .
And it does n't have to be a full world , either : Rome 'taxed the world ' and I 'm certain they did n't get New Jersey.So here 's the question.What * actually * happens when the poles reverse and the Van Allen ( etc ) belts come down for a short time ?
The solar wind , largely H3 I 'm told , touches an oxygen-covered surface at 33,000mph .
So hot hydrogen..on oxygen...rain ? Everyone I 've asked just asserts how ridiculous the question is , but no one ever has a response , other than to roll their eyes .
There must be an answer- another reversal is coming up.And this relates to the article by suggesting the pathology that the planet was heavy * nitrogen * first , and the added water brought the oxygen...I 'm not a scientist , but obviously neither are the people I 've asked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep going over the proof for Noah's flood.
It's not as far-flung as it sounds if you actually RTFM.
It calls for a number of animals that would fit in a rowboat- it doesn't have to be millions.
And it doesn't have to be a full world, either: Rome 'taxed the world' and I'm certain they didn't get New Jersey.So here's the question.What *actually* happens when the poles reverse and the Van Allen (etc) belts come down for a short time?
The solar wind, largely H3 I'm told, touches an oxygen-covered surface at 33,000mph.
So hot hydrogen..on oxygen...rain?Everyone I've asked just asserts how ridiculous the question is, but no one ever has a response, other than to roll their eyes.
There must be an answer- another reversal is coming up.And this relates to the article by suggesting the pathology that the planet was heavy *nitrogen* first, and the added water brought the oxygen...I'm not a scientist, but obviously neither are the people I've asked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28556495</id>
	<title>What about Venus?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246543320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why isn't Venus's atmosphere mainly nitrogen then?  I don't think comets selectively crashed into earth so they could build it an atmosphere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't Venus 's atmosphere mainly nitrogen then ?
I do n't think comets selectively crashed into earth so they could build it an atmosphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't Venus's atmosphere mainly nitrogen then?
I don't think comets selectively crashed into earth so they could build it an atmosphere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28555507</id>
	<title>These stories</title>
	<author>taucross</author>
	<datestamp>1246532880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find these stories kind of unfulfilling. No matter how far we get back in nature's cause and effect, I'm still left thinking 'what came before that'. When scientists finally discover the root of all creation, I'll still be thinking the same thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find these stories kind of unfulfilling .
No matter how far we get back in nature 's cause and effect , I 'm still left thinking 'what came before that' .
When scientists finally discover the root of all creation , I 'll still be thinking the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find these stories kind of unfulfilling.
No matter how far we get back in nature's cause and effect, I'm still left thinking 'what came before that'.
When scientists finally discover the root of all creation, I'll still be thinking the same thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28557637</id>
	<title>Re:Actually....</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246549080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then Eve went into the orchard, and Satan talked her into trying a bite out of the tree of life. And then she talked Adam into a bite.</p><p>Then they fucked, and Eve went down to the river to bathe.</p><p>God saw Adam cowering behind a bush and said "WTF???" And Adam said "er, uh, um" and God said "Damn it, you ate that apple, didn't you? Then you fucked her, didn't you?"</p><p>And Adam said, Uh, yes sir, I'm sorry..."</p><p>And God said "Ok, whered the bitch go?"</p><p>And Adam said "she's down by the river washing up."</p><p>And God said "Oh shit, I'll never get the smell out of those fish!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then Eve went into the orchard , and Satan talked her into trying a bite out of the tree of life .
And then she talked Adam into a bite.Then they fucked , and Eve went down to the river to bathe.God saw Adam cowering behind a bush and said " WTF ? ? ?
" And Adam said " er , uh , um " and God said " Damn it , you ate that apple , did n't you ?
Then you fucked her , did n't you ?
" And Adam said , Uh , yes sir , I 'm sorry... " And God said " Ok , whered the bitch go ?
" And Adam said " she 's down by the river washing up .
" And God said " Oh shit , I 'll never get the smell out of those fish !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then Eve went into the orchard, and Satan talked her into trying a bite out of the tree of life.
And then she talked Adam into a bite.Then they fucked, and Eve went down to the river to bathe.God saw Adam cowering behind a bush and said "WTF???
" And Adam said "er, uh, um" and God said "Damn it, you ate that apple, didn't you?
Then you fucked her, didn't you?
"And Adam said, Uh, yes sir, I'm sorry..."And God said "Ok, whered the bitch go?
"And Adam said "she's down by the river washing up.
"And God said "Oh shit, I'll never get the smell out of those fish!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553973</id>
	<title>That seems to make some sense.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246470780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hydrogen probably came from:
<ul> <li>solar wind, and</li>
<li>primordial disc hydrogen.</li>
</ul><p>
My guess is that earth started out as a (not -so-giant?) gas giant  and bled of most of it's original hydrogen.  If that's even vaguely true, then there's little likelihood that the isotope mix would be anywhere near what's in comets.
</p><p>
I'm guessing that the deuterium mix is much higher than in comets (because deuterium, being heavier than hydrogen, is less likely to bleed off).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hydrogen probably came from : solar wind , and primordial disc hydrogen .
My guess is that earth started out as a ( not -so-giant ?
) gas giant and bled of most of it 's original hydrogen .
If that 's even vaguely true , then there 's little likelihood that the isotope mix would be anywhere near what 's in comets .
I 'm guessing that the deuterium mix is much higher than in comets ( because deuterium , being heavier than hydrogen , is less likely to bleed off ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hydrogen probably came from:
 solar wind, and
primordial disc hydrogen.
My guess is that earth started out as a (not -so-giant?
) gas giant  and bled of most of it's original hydrogen.
If that's even vaguely true, then there's little likelihood that the isotope mix would be anywhere near what's in comets.
I'm guessing that the deuterium mix is much higher than in comets (because deuterium, being heavier than hydrogen, is less likely to bleed off).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28557571</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, it is a mystery</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246548720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Who is this God character? How did he create the heaven and the earth from something without form, out of a void? There are obviously some details missing and I demand a refund for this explanation of the universe you have sold to humanity.</i></p><p>He's the programmer who created the Matrix. They never did get all the bugs out of the "dirt" subroutine. I'd give you more information, but unfortunately the code is closed source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is this God character ?
How did he create the heaven and the earth from something without form , out of a void ?
There are obviously some details missing and I demand a refund for this explanation of the universe you have sold to humanity.He 's the programmer who created the Matrix .
They never did get all the bugs out of the " dirt " subroutine .
I 'd give you more information , but unfortunately the code is closed source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is this God character?
How did he create the heaven and the earth from something without form, out of a void?
There are obviously some details missing and I demand a refund for this explanation of the universe you have sold to humanity.He's the programmer who created the Matrix.
They never did get all the bugs out of the "dirt" subroutine.
I'd give you more information, but unfortunately the code is closed source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28571653</id>
	<title>Re:Tunguska Clouds an Indication?</title>
	<author>metaforest</author>
	<datestamp>1246635960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAAP/AB:</p><p>IT seems pretty clear the water we have today didn't come from the type of comets we see NOW.  However, I don't see how it says anything about what sources of water ice were like shortly before or after the sun spooled up it's furnace,  and gradually blew the remnant dust to the edge of the solar system.   Why couldn't the proto-Earth cloud have captured large volumes of water ice before the Sun fired up?</p><p>As for the Nitrogen.   That the isotope ratios in the comets and on the Earth agree, means to me that they had a common source, and have experienced similar environments since their formation.   I do think an earlier notion that IRC from high school is probably debunked.  It seems unlikely that atmospheric nitrogen was cooked off nitrogen rich compounds during the formation of the earth's crust, because the high temps involved in such a cook off would change the isotope ratios.   Is there any reason that N2, or gaseous  N-compounds would not have been present during early formation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAAP/AB : IT seems pretty clear the water we have today did n't come from the type of comets we see NOW .
However , I do n't see how it says anything about what sources of water ice were like shortly before or after the sun spooled up it 's furnace , and gradually blew the remnant dust to the edge of the solar system .
Why could n't the proto-Earth cloud have captured large volumes of water ice before the Sun fired up ? As for the Nitrogen .
That the isotope ratios in the comets and on the Earth agree , means to me that they had a common source , and have experienced similar environments since their formation .
I do think an earlier notion that IRC from high school is probably debunked .
It seems unlikely that atmospheric nitrogen was cooked off nitrogen rich compounds during the formation of the earth 's crust , because the high temps involved in such a cook off would change the isotope ratios .
Is there any reason that N2 , or gaseous N-compounds would not have been present during early formation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAAP/AB:IT seems pretty clear the water we have today didn't come from the type of comets we see NOW.
However, I don't see how it says anything about what sources of water ice were like shortly before or after the sun spooled up it's furnace,  and gradually blew the remnant dust to the edge of the solar system.
Why couldn't the proto-Earth cloud have captured large volumes of water ice before the Sun fired up?As for the Nitrogen.
That the isotope ratios in the comets and on the Earth agree, means to me that they had a common source, and have experienced similar environments since their formation.
I do think an earlier notion that IRC from high school is probably debunked.
It seems unlikely that atmospheric nitrogen was cooked off nitrogen rich compounds during the formation of the earth's crust, because the high temps involved in such a cook off would change the isotope ratios.
Is there any reason that N2, or gaseous  N-compounds would not have been present during early formation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553765</id>
	<title>Uh-Oh it's the UTD Comets</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246467600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Woosh!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Woosh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woosh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554025</id>
	<title>Not exactly a new theory: The Big Splash</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1246471380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The theory of comets as a source of water was also published in 1990, by Louis A. Frank.</p><p>Not exactly your average crack-pot scientists, Frank was the designer of something like 13 payloads on various launch vehicles in the 80s and 90s.</p><p>Frank posits that that small comets still hit the moon and earth almost daily, delivering water virtually every day.  These small comets are more like fluffy snowballs, and are small enough not to have much if any radar signature, but their effects upon impact with the atmosphere are visible from above.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Big\_Splash\_(book)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Big\_Splash\_(book)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Excerpt from The Big Splash<br>by Louis A. Frank with Patrick Huyghe<br>Published by Birch Lane Press, 1990.<br>ISBN 1-55972-033-6</p><p><a href="http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/blackspot.html" title="uiowa.edu">http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/blackspot.html</a> [uiowa.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The theory of comets as a source of water was also published in 1990 , by Louis A. Frank.Not exactly your average crack-pot scientists , Frank was the designer of something like 13 payloads on various launch vehicles in the 80s and 90s.Frank posits that that small comets still hit the moon and earth almost daily , delivering water virtually every day .
These small comets are more like fluffy snowballs , and are small enough not to have much if any radar signature , but their effects upon impact with the atmosphere are visible from above.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Big \ _Splash \ _ ( book ) [ wikipedia.org ] Excerpt from The Big Splashby Louis A. Frank with Patrick HuyghePublished by Birch Lane Press , 1990.ISBN 1-55972-033-6http : //smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/blackspot.html [ uiowa.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The theory of comets as a source of water was also published in 1990, by Louis A. Frank.Not exactly your average crack-pot scientists, Frank was the designer of something like 13 payloads on various launch vehicles in the 80s and 90s.Frank posits that that small comets still hit the moon and earth almost daily, delivering water virtually every day.
These small comets are more like fluffy snowballs, and are small enough not to have much if any radar signature, but their effects upon impact with the atmosphere are visible from above.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Big\_Splash\_(book) [wikipedia.org]Excerpt from The Big Splashby Louis A. Frank with Patrick HuyghePublished by Birch Lane Press, 1990.ISBN 1-55972-033-6http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/blackspot.html [uiowa.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28555109</id>
	<title>from the ??? dept.</title>
	<author>adavies42</author>
	<datestamp>1246527180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what happened to the dept tag?</htmltext>
<tokenext>what happened to the dept tag ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what happened to the dept tag?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553909</id>
	<title>The comets may have seeded life.</title>
	<author>reporter</author>
	<datestamp>1246469520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In addition to creating an atmosphere on earth, comets may also have <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1262216.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">seeded life</a> [bbc.co.uk].</htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to creating an atmosphere on earth , comets may also have seeded life [ bbc.co.uk ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to creating an atmosphere on earth, comets may also have seeded life [bbc.co.uk].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554711</id>
	<title>Actually....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246565340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.  And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning&#226;"the first day.</p><p>And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning&#226;"the second day.</p><p>And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.  God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.</p><p>Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.  The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning&#226;"the third day.</p><p>And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights&#226;"the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning&#226;"the fourth day.</p><p>And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning&#226;"the fifth day.</p><p>And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.</p><p>Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."</p><p>So God created man in his own image,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; in the image of God he created him;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; male and female he created them.</p><p>God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."</p><p>Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground&#226;"everything that has the breath of life in it&#226;"I give every green plant for food." And it was so.</p><p>God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning&#226;"the sixth day.</p><p>Genesis 1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth .
Now the earth was formless and empty , darkness was over the surface of the deep , and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters .
And God said , " Let there be light , " and there was light .
God saw that the light was good , and He separated the light from the darkness .
God called the light " day , " and the darkness he called " night .
" And there was evening , and there was morning   " the first day.And God said , " Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water .
" So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it .
And it was so .
God called the expanse " sky .
" And there was evening , and there was morning   " the second day.And God said , " Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place , and let dry ground appear .
" And it was so .
God called the dry ground " land , " and the gathered waters he called " seas .
" And God saw that it was good.Then God said , " Let the land produce vegetation : seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it , according to their various kinds .
" And it was so .
The land produced vegetation : plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds .
And God saw that it was good .
And there was evening , and there was morning   " the third day.And God said , " Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night , and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years , and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth .
" And it was so .
God made two great lights   " the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night .
He also made the stars .
God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth , 18 to govern the day and the night , and to separate light from darkness .
And God saw that it was good .
And there was evening , and there was morning   " the fourth day.And God said , " Let the water teem with living creatures , and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky .
" So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems , according to their kinds , and every winged bird according to its kind .
And God saw that it was good .
God blessed them and said , " Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas , and let the birds increase on the earth .
" And there was evening , and there was morning   " the fifth day.And God said , " Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds : livestock , creatures that move along the ground , and wild animals , each according to its kind .
" And it was so .
God made the wild animals according to their kinds , the livestock according to their kinds , and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds .
And God saw that it was good.Then God said , " Let us make man in our image , in our likeness , and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air , over the livestock , over all the earth , and over all the creatures that move along the ground .
" So God created man in his own image ,               in the image of God he created him ;               male and female he created them.God blessed them and said to them , " Be fruitful and increase in number ; fill the earth and subdue it .
Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground .
" Then God said , " I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it .
They will be yours for food .
And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground   " everything that has the breath of life in it   " I give every green plant for food .
" And it was so.God saw all that he had made , and it was very good .
And there was evening , and there was morning   " the sixth day.Genesis 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night.
" And there was evening, and there was morningâ"the first day.And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.
" So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.
And it was so.
God called the expanse "sky.
" And there was evening, and there was morningâ"the second day.And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.
" And it was so.
God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas.
" And God saw that it was good.Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.
" And it was so.
The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.
And God saw that it was good.
And there was evening, and there was morningâ"the third day.And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.
" And it was so.
God made two great lightsâ"the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.
He also made the stars.
God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.
And God saw that it was good.
And there was evening, and there was morningâ"the fourth day.And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.
" So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
And God saw that it was good.
God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.
" And there was evening, and there was morningâ"the fifth day.And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.
" And it was so.
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.
And God saw that it was good.Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.
"So God created man in his own image,
              in the image of God he created him;
              male and female he created them.God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.
Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.
"Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it.
They will be yours for food.
And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the groundâ"everything that has the breath of life in itâ"I give every green plant for food.
" And it was so.God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.
And there was evening, and there was morningâ"the sixth day.Genesis 1</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_231246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28558361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_231246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_231246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28556193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_231246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28558495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_231246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28571653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_231246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28557785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_231246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28557571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_231246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_231246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28556537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_231246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_231246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28557637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_231246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28555751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_231246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28569173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_231246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_231246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_231246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_231246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28558361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_231246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_231246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_231246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28556047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_231246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28556537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_231246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28557785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28556193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28569173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28571653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_231246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28558495
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_231246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28557637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_231246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28555751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554231
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28557571
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_231246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28554091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_231246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_231246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_231246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_231246.28553941
</commentlist>
</conversation>
