Where did all this wet stuff come from?

Science postulates that when the earth was magically forming, billions upon
quadzillions of years ago(sarcasm). The planet was very hot and then slowly
began to cool. Scientists point to a lack of evidence and water available on
earth, in regards to the hundreds of ancient accounts, from diverse cultures
around the world, of an ancient deluge. A world wide flood, that wiped a previous
world, from the face of the planet and left few survivors. This is the Biblical account.
science scoffs at and says is just a myth. I often wonder why and can only
believe, it's because scientists have this big unwarranted, problem with the
Bible.

So as you may have guessed, I have big problem with that. And believe me, I
would still have a problem with it, despite my personal beliefs. I absolutely
know in my gut, science is wrong, to even think of these accounts, especially
the account in Genesis, as myths. I believe a ton of history is discounted in
our time as myth. And I'm not shy in my convictions.




So I was pondering this a bit today. And it suddenly occured to me.
If the earth had to cool down from it's own natural formation. Then
there was no water present after it finished cooling. No water, no life.
and there you have my question. Where did all the water we see today
come from? I do know what the scientific answer is. And forgive me, I
find it no more believable then anything, in the Bible. And that's just
from a very down to earth view. Pun intended.

And even if science did ever find out where all the wet stuff came from.
How would they not be finding the source, of a world wide flood at the
same time?

reply to post by randyvs


I don't remember where I saw it, maybe it was a show about comets or asteroids. It said that all rocks in space have water in them, about the same % as the earth itself.

To prove it they crushed portions of a meteorite and cooked it, trapping the outgas in a condenser…

sure enough there was a liberal amount of water, in the rock.

reply to post by randyvs


Ummm......H2O. (it's kinda simple.)

If I had a video camera and a can of hydrogen I could show you the magic.

Even though the link doesn't work, how about here?
Water

If I had a video camera and a can of hydrogen I could show you the magic.

So the earth cooled and the water was there ? Oceans of salt water and a
diverse water for the life to propagate from? That seems unlikely.

reply to post by randyvs
Which scientific answer? There are multiple hypothesizes.

randyvs

If I had a video camera and a can of hydrogen I could show you the magic.

So the earth cooled and the water was there ? Oceans of salt water and a
diverse water for the life to propagate from? That seems unlikely.

edit on 27-1-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

When certain gases cool, they liquefy. Water.

reply to post by randyvs

all the programs i,ve watched the scientists are all in agreement that all earths water came from comet impacts.

i,m not convinced cause most things they have believed recently are turning out to be things they have to reavaluate cause they find things that shouldn,t be happening.

they should just admit that whats out there they may never be able to understand.

reply to post by randyvs

Scientists point to a lack of evidence and water available on earth, in regards to the hundreds of ancient accounts, from diverse cultures around the world, of an ancient deluge.

2000 year old text is not "ancient" when you're talking in terms of geological time scales. Those "ancient" texts would have to go as far back as 4 billion years ago in order to tell their tale of how all the wet stuff developed.

Telling the tale of one timeslot in human history (the big flood) does not a planetary evolution theory make.

reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX

Which scientific answer? There are multiple hypothesizes.

Comets, but one could weasily deduce by your question that science
doesn't actually have an answer.

reply to post by randyvs


I fail to see how the deluge ties into your main point?

randyvs
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX

 

Which scientific answer? There are multiple hypothesizes.

Comets, but one could weasily deduce by your question that science
doesn't actually have an answer.

Give it some time. It's not like we figured out Tectonic Theory inside a week. Science doesn't happen instantly.

reply to post by sparky31

they should just admit that whats out there they may never be able to understand.

Exactly and I would totally respect that. Rather then having to consider some
half baked answer that might as well have been the sound of raped duck. Quack!

reply to post by randyvs


No.

When hydrogen burns it creates water.

Simple science.

reply to post by ProdigalSonofa

I fail to see how the deluge ties into your main point?

And I fail to see how you could of failed.

reply to post by CranialSponge

Telling the tale of one timeslot in human history (the big flood) does not a planetary evolution theory make.

I'm not out to write a theory of evolution. Isn't that common knowledge around here?

reply to post by randyvs


You could just explain yourself, instead of of responding with a smart S reply, but since you are obviously unable to see that there is no logical connection between an occurrance described in a 2000 year old text and a situation that occured billions of years ago, which a previous poster already pointed out, I guess it was too much to ask.

reply to post by randyvs
Yes, one could and should deduce that;science is slow to form convictions. I'm more than respectful of your beliefs and I'll admit I'm a little confused as to the intended outcome of this thread. Was it to facilitate discussion on the origins of abundant water on our planet, or, was it to validate your preconceived convictions?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Give it some time. It's not like we figured out Tectonic Theory inside a week. Science doesn't happen instantly.

Then let that be the answer. I'd be happier then Aquarius with a fire hose.

reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX

reply to post by randyvs

Yes, one could and should deduce that;science is slow to form convictions. I'm more than respectful of your beliefs and I'll admit I'm a little confused as to the intended outcome of this thread. Was it to facilitate discussion on the origins of abundant water on our planet, or, was it to validate your preconceived convictions?

edit on 27-1-2014 by XxRagingxPandaxX because: (no reason given)

If scientists are going to deny history and call it myth?
They need to have more than a hypothesees.
That's where I'm at. Are we clear?